Southeastern

John Stanley: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport 
	(1)  what the amount of (a) subsidy paid to and (b) franchise premium sought from the holders of the new South Eastern franchise planned to commence on 1 April 2014 will be in each year of the new franchise;
	(2)  when she intends to make public the amount of (a) subsidy paid to and (b) franchise premium sought from the holder of the new South Eastern franchise planned to commence on 1 April 2014 in each year of the new franchise.

Theresa Villiers: The new southeastern contract is expected to be signed in December 2013. The amount of subsidy paid or premium sought is not known at this stage of the re-letting process.

Community Orders

Elfyn Llwyd: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice how many people were given a community sentence with a condition of being electronically tagged in Wales and England in 2011.

Crispin Blunt: In 2011 63,164 new electronically monitored supervision orders were started as part of a community sentence in England and Wales.

Employment Tribunals Service

Caroline Lucas: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice with reference to the answer of 29 February 2012, Official Report, columns 369-70W, on the Employment Tribunals Service, how many (a) single claims, (b) multiple claims and (c) multiple claim cases (i) were accepted by employment tribunals in 2011-12 and (ii) are awaiting determination by an employment tribunal.

Jonathan Djanogly: The Ministry of Justice publishes information, both quarterly and annually, on the workloads before tribunals administered by Her Majesty's Courts and Tribunals Service. This information includes statistics on the receipts, disposals and outstanding (or 'live') caseload in the employment tribunals system. Statistics are available online at:
	http://www.justice.gov.uk/statistics/tribunals
	In the financial year 2011-12, employment tribunals received 186,300 new claims. Of those new claim receipts, 59,200 were 'singles' and 127,100 were 'multiples'. The multiple claims were grouped into 4,300 actions, or 'multiple claim cases'.
	At the end of the financial year 2011-12, the employment tribunals had a live caseload of 540,800 claims. That total was made up of 26,500 singles claims (a fall of 7% from the end of the previous financial year) and 514,300 multiples claims, the large majority of which were stayed pending appellate decisions or otherwise unready for final hearing. Information on the total number of outstanding multiple claims cases is not yet available. I will write to the hon. Member with the information as soon as my officials can provide it.

Human Trafficking: Victim Support Schemes

Mark Pawsey: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what the (a) nationality and (b) gender was of each suspected victim of trafficking referred to the Trafficking Victim Support Scheme operated by the Salvation Army in June 2012; in which region each of the suspected victims was found; and which agency referred each case to the scheme.

Crispin Blunt: In June 2012 there were 46 referrals to the Government-funded support service for adult victims of human trafficking in England and Wales administered by the Salvation Army. Details are as follows:
	
		
			 Nationality Gender Region Referring agency 
			 Albanian Female South East UKBA 
			 Albanian Female Yorkshire UKBA 
			 Albanian Female Yorkshire UKBA 
			 Albanian Female Yorkshire UKBA 
			 Bangladeshi Female West Midlands UKBA 
			 Bulgarian Female South East Social services 
			 Bulgarian Male South East Social services 
			 Czech Female West Midlands Police 
			 Czech Female West Midlands Police 
			 Czech Female South East Police 
			 Czech Female South East Police 
			 Czech Male South East NGO 
			 Eritrean Female Yorkshire UKBA 
			 Gambian Female South East NGO 
			 Ghanaian Female South East UKBA 
			 Hungarian Male South East Police 
			 Indian Male West Midlands Legal representative 
			 Mali an Female South East Legal representative 
			 Moldavian Female South East Self-referral 
			 Moldavian Female South East Local authority 
			 Nigerian Male South Fast Legal representative 
			 Nigerian Female Wales NGO 
			 Nigerian Female South East UKBA 
			 Nigerian Female South East Legal representative 
			 Nigerian Female South East NGO 
			 Nigerian Female South East NGO 
			 Nigerian Female Yorkshire UKBA 
			 Nigerian Female Yorkshire UKBA 
			 Polish Male Wales GLA 
			 Polish Male Wales GLA 
			 Polish Male Wales GLA 
			 Polish Female Wales GLA 
			 Polish Male West Midlands NGO 
			 Polish Male West Midlands NGO 
			 Polish Male Yorkshire NGO 
			 Polish Male South East NGO 
			 Romanian Female South East Police 
			 Romanian Female South East Police 
			 Slovakian Male Not known Not known 
			 Slovakian Male West Midlands NGO 
			 UK Female South East UKHTC 
			 UK Male North West NGO 
			 US Male Yorkshire UKBA 
			 Zambian Female South East NGO 
			 Not known Female West Midlands Prison service 
			 Not known Female West Midlands UKBA

Prisoners’ Release

Philip Davies: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice pursuant to the answer of 19 June 2012, Official Report, column 918W, on prisoners’ release, what estimate he has made of the proportion of offenders who were sentenced to (a) two weeks, (b) four weeks, (c) three months and (d) six months who served the minimum amount of time in prison.

Crispin Blunt: Prisoners will generally serve the minimum amount of time in prison that was indicated in the previous reply, ie half the length of sentence, less any period of release under the Home Detention Curfew Scheme (HDC). Those serving less than three months are ineligible for HDC so those serving two and four weeks will all generally be released after serving half of the sentence. Data on the release of prisoners under the Home Detention Curfew scheme are published on a quarterly and annual basis, and are available at the following link:
	http://www.justice.gov.uk/statistics/prisons-and-probation/oms-quarterly
	The data show that, in 2011, a total of 12,727 prisoners were released on HDC. This is a 30% release rate; ie 30% of those serving between three months and just less than four years (the HDC eligibility range, although many in this range will be ineligible or presumed unsuitable for HDC by nature of offence). We estimate that, of those released on HDC, (including those serving three and six months) around 30% are likely to have been released at the earliest possible date, i.e. their HDC eligibility date, and will, therefore, have served the minimum period in prison available to them. The rest of the prisoners in this range will have served at least the minimum period in prison available to them and were released between their HDC eligibility date and the halfway point in their sentence.
	As noted in the previous answer, the minimum period in prison in an individual case may be reduced by any relevant tagged bail time directed to count by the court. The Department does not hold data on the incidence of tagged bail being directed to count by the court.

Prisoners: Females

Helen Grant: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice how many female inmates were reprimanded in respect of offences involving the use of drugs in prison in (a) 2010 and (b) 2011; and if he will make a statement.

Crispin Blunt: Adjudication procedures deal with offences against discipline alleged to have been committed by prisoners, and contribute to maintaining order and control, and a safe environment, within prisons.
	Since 2010 we have no longer been able to identify drug offences separately. However, the number of proven offences for ‘unauthorised transaction/possession’ committed by females in prison and dealt with under the prison adjudication process in 2010 and 2011 were 1,198 and 1,175 respectively. These may also include possession of other unauthorised items, for example a mobile phone. These figures count the number of offences, not the number of individuals; one prisoner may be responsible for more than one offence.
	This information is published in the annual tables of the Offender Management Statistics. The publication is available free of charge on the Ministry of Justice website via this link:
	http://www.justice.gov.uk/statistics/prisons-and-probation/oms-quarterly
	These figures have been drawn from administrative IT systems which, as with any large scale recording system, are subject to possible errors with data entry and processing.

Free Schools: Planning Permission

Nick de Bois: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government if he will take steps to prevent local authorities requiring payments under section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 from new free school developments; and if he will make a statement.

Greg Clark: The Government is committed to ensuring free schools are able to set up quickly. The National Planning Policy Framework published on 27 March 2012 makes clear that local planning authorities should give great weight to the need to create, expand or alter schools. Local planning authorities must ensure that any section 106 planning obligations meet three statutory tests—that they are necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms, directly related to the development, and fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development.

Homelessness

Jack Dromey: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government what guidance his Department has issued to local authorities on the provision of services to households which are designated intentionally homeless; what provision is made for emergency accommodation for households which are classified as intentionally homeless; how many households classified as intentionally homeless in each of the last three years included children; how many households classified as intentionally homeless were provided with emergency accommodation in each of the last three years; how many such households were accommodated for more than (a) 28 and (b) 60 days; how many households in each local authority area were classified as intentionally homeless in each of the last three years; how many households in temporary accommodation were classified as intentionally homeless in each of the last three years; and how many of the households in temporary accommodation were classified as intentionally homeless on the latest date for which figures are available.

Grant Shapps: This Department issued the Homelessness Code of Guidance for Local Authorities in July 2006 which outlines those duties owed to intentionally homeless households and explains those circumstances in which emergency accommodation for these households can be used. In May 2008 this Department and the Department for Education produced joint guidance, ‘Joint working between Housing and Children's Services: Preventing homelessness and tackling its effects on children and young people’, which focused on children of families who have been, or are at risk of being, found intentionally homeless by a housing authority.
	The Department does not collect information on the numbers of households classified as intentionally homeless that: (i) include children; (ii) were provided with emergency accommodation; or (iii) had been accommodated for longer than a particular period.
	The Department does, however, collect figures the number of households applying for assistance under the provisions of the 1996 Housing Act that were found to be ‘eligible, homeless and in priority need, but intentionally so’. Figures for each local authority area are available on the Department's website at:
	http://www.communities.gov.uk/housing/housingresearch/housingstatistics/housingstatisticsby/homelessnessstatistics/livetables/
	in Table 784 (for financial years 2004-05 to 2011-12) and 784a (separately for all four quarters of 2011-12).
	The Department also collects figures—as at the end of each quarter—on the number of households that were intentionally homeless and were being accommodated by a local authority for a reasonable period. England totals for the end of each quarter from March 2002 are set out in the following table:
	
		
			 Households that were intentionally homeless and in temporary accommodation—England 
			 As at end: March June September December 
			 2002 750 660 800 730 
			 2003 830 1,090 1,120 1,230 
			 2004 1,180 1,340 1,340 1,430 
			 2005 1,420 1,370 1,460 1,400 
			 2006 1,340 1,460 1,130 1,230 
			 2007 1,370 1,120 980 1,050 
			 2008 810 820 1,000 590 
			 2009 840 720 600 590 
			 2010 690 620 610 720 
			 2011 670 660 840 710 
			 2012 740 (1)— (1)— (1)— 
			 (1) Not yet available Note: Numbers of households are rounded to nearest 10. Source: Quarterly PIE returns 
		
	
	The coalition Government is committed to tackling homelessness. We are investing £400 million in homelessness prevention over four years (2011-12 to 2014-15). On top of that we provided an additional £70 million last year to help local agencies prevent and tackle homelessness. Homelessness is half the average rate that it was under the previous Administration and remains lower than in 28 of the last 30 years.
	The additional £70 million comprises the following:
	£20 million—Homelessness Transition Fund to support the roll-out of ‘No Second Night Out’ and protect vital front line services.
	£20 million—Preventing Repossessions funding to enable local authorities intervene earlier and help people stay in their homes.
	£20 million—Single Homelessness Prevention funding to help ensure single homeless people get access to good housing advice.
	£5 million boost to the Homelessness Change Programme (bringing the total investment to £42.5 million) to deliver improved hostel provision and provide over 1,500 new and improved bed spaces.
	£5 million—Social Impact Bond—using a payment by results model to help persistent rough sleepers in London. This is the first Social Impact Bond set up to tackle homelessness in the world.

Pay

Gareth Thomas: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government how many staff working for his Department, its executive agencies and non-departmental public bodies are employed through off-payroll engagements costing less than £58,200 per annum; and if he will make a statement.

Bob Neill: Details of staff employed by the Department of Communities and Local Government, its Executive agencies and non-departmental public bodies through off-payroll engagements costing more than £58,200 per annum were published on 23 May 2012, and can be found on the Department's website at:
	http://www.communities.gov.uk/newsstories/newsroom/2149952
	This includes staff for whom the cost if employed for a full year would be more than £58,200, but where the actual cost is or may be less than £58,200.
	Details of staff employed by DCLG's Executive agencies and non-departmental bodies is not held centrally, and the additional information requested on staff employed through off-payroll engagements costing less than £58,200 per annum can be obtained only at disproportionate cost. Information has therefore been obtained for DCLG and its Executive agencies only.
	As of 31 May 2012, there were 11 such staff employed by DCLG, one by the Fire Service College and 10 by the Queen Elizabeth II Conference Centre. In addition, the Planning Inspectorate had 93 non-salaried inspectors paid on a case-by-case basis to provide additional capacity to determine planning appeals where required.
	In relation to the Planning Inspectorate, these long-standing arrangements for non-salaried inspectors have been agreed with HM Revenue and Customs, and appropriate checks are in place to prevent any conflict of interest with outside work. Such arrangements reduce costs for the taxpayer and allows the Inspectorate to handle better workload volume as well as seasonal peaks and troughs in demand.
	As far as I am aware, there is no suggestion that there are any inappropriate tax avoidance arrangements by these specialist contractors.

Planning Permission

George Galloway: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government if he will consider introducing a special planning licence for bookmakers and other betting establishments to give local authorities the power to refuse or modify applications in order to achieve a varied mix of shops and businesses.

Bob Neill: Local authorities already have a range of powers available to tackle any localised problems. These can be used to target specific areas where the cumulative impact of betting shops is becoming unacceptable.
	Taken together with powers under the Gambling Act to tackle individual premises, councils have a powerful set of tools with which to address any problems where they arise.
	Notwithstanding, the Government has recently published a consultation paper on planning, which asks whether there is a case for making further changes to the broader change of use regime. Hon. Members may wish to make a representation to the consultation.

101 Calls

Alun Cairns: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the cost was of the 101 non-emergency number in each of the last three years; how much income has been drawn from calls to the number in each year; and if she will make a statement.

Nick Herbert: holding answer 13 July 2012
	In 2010-11 and 2011-12 the cost to the Government of developing the 101 police non-emergency number was approximately £900,000 and £950,000 respectively. In 2011-12, the Government extended the service to cover all forces in England and Wales under a renegotiated contract, with police forces now funding the ongoing running costs from their budgets. There is no central funding for 101 in 2012-13.
	Police forces and government receive no income from calls to 101; the 15 pence flat rate charge for each 101 call goes directly to the telephony company to cover the cost of carrying the calls.

Asylum

Julian Huppert: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many outstanding applications for asylum are being processed by her Department.

Damian Green: holding answer 16 July 2012
	At the end of March 2012, 11,454 applications were awaiting an initial decision or the outcome of an appeal or further review. This figure is for applications received by main applicants since April 2006.
	The number of asylum applications pending is published on a quarterly basis. Latest figures are available in Table ‘as.01.q’ of the release ‘Immigration Statistics, January to March 2012’ which is available from the Library of the House and from the Home Office Science website at:
	http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/science-research-statistics/research-statistics/immigration-asylum-research/immigration-q1-2012/

Draft Communications Data Bill

Julian Huppert: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on how many occasions (a) she, (b) Ministers in her Department, (c) the Director-General, Security and Counter-Terrorism and (d) other officials in her Department have met (i) Google, (ii) Facebook and (iii) Skype to discuss the draft Communications Data Bill; and on what dates.

James Brokenshire: holding answer 13 July 2012
	Home Office Ministers and officials have meetings with a wide variety of partners, including organisations and individuals in the public and private sectors, as part of the process of policy development and delivery. Effective engagement with industry is central to this; we have regular discussions with a number of companies. As was the case with previous Administrations, it is not the Government's practice to provide details of all such meetings. Revealing exactly which companies have been involved in discussions can reveal and compromise the operational capabilities that we develop in partnership with the industry.

Drugs: Misuse

Bob Ainsworth: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what her most recent estimate is of the size of the illicit drug market in the UK.

James Brokenshire: holding answer 16 July 2012
	The most recent estimate by the Home Office of the size of the UK illicit drugs market was published in 2006. It estimated the value of the UK illicit drug market at between £4 billion to £6.6 billion for the reference year 2003-04.
	Source:
	Reference: Pudney et al. (2006) 'Estimating the size of the UK illicit drug market' In Singleton, N. et al. (eds.) 'Measuring different aspects of problem drug use: methodological developments'. Home Office Online Report 16/06):
	http://rds.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs06/rdsolr1606.pdf

Entry Clearances: Overseas Students

Nicholas Soames: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many student visas issued in 2011 were for study at (a) Higher Education institutions, (b) private further education colleges, (c) public further education colleges and (d) language colleges.

Damian Green: holding answer 16 July 2012
	The number of entry clearance visas issued in 2011 for the purposes of study, including tier 4 (students) and student visitors was 322,653.
	To provide a more detailed breakdown would require the examination of individual records, which would incur disproportionate costs.

First Offenders

Dan Jarvis: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many first-time offenders were arrested and charged in (a) 1997, (b) 2001, (c) 2005, (d) 2010 and (e) the latest year for which data is available.

Nick Herbert: holding answer 6 July 2012
	The information requested is not collected centrally by the Home Office.

Immigration

Chris Bryant: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people were granted temporary leave to remain upon arrival in the UK (a) between February 2011 and July 2011 and (b) since February 2012.

Damian Green: holding answer 13 July 2012
	No arrivals at the UK border were granted temporary leave to remain upon arrival at port. Leave to remain is either granted through the issuing of a visa or through an application submitted in-country.

Immigration Controls

Frank Field: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people had their applications for further leave to remain refused in 2011; and how many of them e-borders recorded as subsequently leaving the UK. [R]

Damian Green: holding answer 16 July 2012
	In 2011, there were 54,272 decisions, including dependants, to refuse an application for an extension of stay in the United Kingdom.
	This is a provisional figure released in table ex.01 in the Home Office's ‘Immigration Statistics January—March 2012’ which is available from the Library of the House and from the Home Office Science, research and statistics web pages at:
	http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/science-research-statistics/research-statistics/immigration-asylum-research/immigration-q1-2012/?view=Standard&pubID=1024555
	The e-Borders system enables checks to be made on individuals arriving or exiting the UK, but does not collect information specifically on individuals identified as having been refused further leave to remain, except when they leave the UK on certain routes.

Immigration Controls

Frank Field: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps her Department is taking to reduce the number of people granted settlement outside of the immigration rules. [R]

Damian Green: holding answer 16 July 2012
	On 13 June 2012 the Secretary of State for the Home Department, my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), laid a Statement of Changes in Immigration Rules on family migration, which came into force on 9 July 2012. A person who does not meet the requirements of the Immigration Rules will no longer be considered for discretionary leave outside the rules on Article 8 grounds. Provision has now been made in the Rules themselves for leave to remain on the basis of private or family life. The eligibility for this leave, and the conditions attached to it, are set out in the Rules. This brings to an end the previous widespread practice of granting discretionary leave outside the rules on Article 8 grounds. In future, if a person does not qualify for leave under the rules, or for leave outside the rules on a genuinely exceptional basis, they will not receive any form, of leave and will be expected to leave the UK.
	Full details are in the Statement of Intent, available on the UK Border Agency website at:
	http://www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/sitecontent/documents/news/soi-fam-mig.pdf
	and in the House of Commons Library.

Immigration Controls

Julian Huppert: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the average length of time was for the Border Agency to determine an application for a Highly Trusted Sponsor Certificate in the latest period for which figures are available.

Damian Green: The average length of time taken to determine an application for Highly Trusted Sponsor (HTS) status is shown as follows.
	
		
			  Cases despatched Average processing time (days) 
			 2010 694 78 
			 2011 800 122 
			 2012 (year to date) 620 167 
		
	
	The figures provided have been derived from local management information and have not been subject to national statistical protocols.
	This information excludes those applications where there is no received or despatched date, i.e. where publicly funded educational institutions were automatically given HTS status for the first 12 months.
	The average processing time for HTS applications has increased since 2010 principally because the application process is more detailed. More automated processes have been introduced to ensure that applications are dealt with in a timely fashion.

Ministerial Policy Advisers

Lisa Nandy: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether special advisers in her Department are permitted to use non-departmental email addresses for departmental business.

Damian Green: holding answer 21 June 2012
	Any communication of protectively marked material outside the Government Secure Intranet (GSI) network on personal ICT equipment is strictly prohibited.
	Other forms of electronic communication may be occasionally used in the course of conducting Government business but this will depend on all the circumstances, including the nature and sensitivity of the information being communicated.

Police

Madeleine Moon: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if she Department will take steps to use police training to build awareness of suicidal behaviour so that officers are better equipped to recognise those at risk; and if she will make a statement.

Nick Herbert: It is the duty of the chief constable of each force to ensure that police officers are sufficiently well trained to deal with all situations that they might face. The Home Office does not mandate training for police officers.
	The subject of suicide is mentioned on several occasions during the initial training for all police officers.
	The police are currently taking part in a number a Government-led cross-sector forums which seek to improve practice in the investigation of sudden deaths.

Prisons: Mental Health Services

Bob Stewart: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what standard operational procedures are in place to deal with (a) an escape and (b) a patient absconding while on escort from the secure or medium secure units at Bethlem Royal Hospital.

Paul Burstow: I have been asked to reply 
	on behalf of the Department of Health.
	This is a matter for the South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust. We have written to the trust's Chair, Madeliene Long, informing her of your inquiry. She will reply shortly and a copy of the letter will be placed in the Library.

Schengen Agreement: ICT

Dominic Raab: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department with reference to EU Council Decision 2008/334/JHA, whether the UK has fully adopted the SIRENE manual and other implementing measures for the second generation Schengen Information System.

James Brokenshire: holding answer 12 July 2012
	The UK has adopted EU Commission Decision 2008/334/JHA adopting the SIRENE manual and other implementing measures for the second generation Schengen Information System. However as the second generation Schengen Information System is not yet in operation adoption of the Decision has not required the UK or any other member state to take practical measures in relation to the Commission Decision.
	Between the adoption of this decision and the present, changes have been suggested to the SIRENE manual and other implementing measures for the second generation Schengen Information System to reflect the operational needs of end-users and staff involved in SIRENE operations better, to improve consistency of working procedures and ensure that technical rules are compliant. The European Commission is therefore drafting new legislation which will repeal and replace EU Commission Decision 2008/334/JHA of 4 March 2008.

Victim Support Schemes

Priti Patel: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department 
	(1)  what guidance she will issue to police and crime commissioners on the commissioning of services for victims; and when she expects to issue that guidance;
	(2)  if she will meet with providers of victim support services to discuss future arrangements for the delivery of such services when commissioned by police and crime commissioners.

Crispin Blunt: I have been asked to reply 
	on behalf of the Ministry of Justice.
	In the Government response to the consultation ‘Getting it Right for Victims and Witnesses’ we said we would provide an outcomes-based commissioning framework for use by Police and Crime Commissioners (PCCs). Its content will be developed with the involvement of interested parties including the voluntary sector and PCCs themselves. While PCCs will not be compelled to use the framework our intention is that they will find the advice and information it contains helpful as they undertake the task of commissioning victims' services that are right for their areas.
	The Government values the hard work and commitment of providers of victims' services. As the new commissioning arrangements develop Ministers will be happy to meet with providers of victims' services when it would be helpful to do so.

Work Permits

Katy Clark: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department pursuant to the answer of 22 May 2012, Official Report, column 602W, on work permits, what recent assessment she has made of the effect of European Council Regulation 3577/92/EC on the work permit requirements for non-EEA seafarers employed on vessels flagged to (a) another EU state and (b) non-EEA states working exclusively within British waters.

Damian Green: A non-EEA national seeking entry to the UK for the purpose of joining, as a contracted crew member, a vessel as which will operate wholly or largely within British waters will generally require permission to work under the points-based system. However, Regulation 3577/92/EC specifies that matters, including work permit requirements, relating to the manning of a vessel registered in another member state and engaged in cabotage between ports situated in the same member state will be responsibility of the member state in which the vessel is registered, except where the vessel is smaller than 650 gt and where it is engaged in cabotage between mainland ports and ports situated in the same member state. This exception to the work permit requirement does not apply to vessels registered in a country outside the EEA.

Work Permits

Katy Clark: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department pursuant to the answer of 22 May 2012, Official Report, column 602W, on work permits, what recent assessment she has made of the effect of changes to the immigration system made after 10 May 2010 on the application of tier 2 of the points-based system to non-EEA seafarers seeking admission to the UK to work on vessels where the tour of duty does not leave British waters.

Damian Green: Non-EEA seafarers working on vessels which do not leave British waters would need to obtain permission to work through tier 2 of the points-based system.
	In April 2011, the skills requirement for tier 2 of the points-based system was increased from NQF 3 to NQF 4. The Government has subsequently, in June this year, raised the requirement to NQF 6 for the majority of tier 2 roles—the exceptions being jobs on the shortage occupation list, which currently does not include any seafaring occupations, and certain creative roles. Therefore, unless non-EEA seafarers are intending to take up roles skilled to NQF 6 or above, they are not eligible to come to the UK under tier 2.
	The Migration Advisory Committee considered whether ship’s officers should be added to the tier 2 shortage occupation list as part of its review of that list published in September 2011. It concluded that this occupation should not be added to the list. The impact of the tier 2 limit for 2012-13, including the impacts on specific occupations of raising the skills threshold for tier 2 to NQF 6, were assessed by the Migration Advisory Committee on its report published in February 2012. The MAC’s reports are available at:
	www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/aboutus/workingwithus/indbodies/mac/reports-publications/

Child Care Tax Credit

Stephen Timms: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many households claimed child care tax credits in (a) 2010-11 and (b) 2011-12.

David Gauke: holding answer 26 June 2012
	The average number of families benefiting from the child care element 2010-11 is available in table 3.2 of the HMRC publication “Child and Working Tax Credit Statistics Finalised Annual Awards 2010-11” which is available at:
	http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/stats/personal-tax-credits/final-award-main.htm
	In 2010-11, 455,000 families benefited.
	Figures for 2011-12 will be available in May 2013.
	More recent data on the number of families benefiting from the child care element is available in table 4.4 of the HMRC publication “Child and Working Tax Credit Statistics April 2012” which is available at:
	http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/stats/personal-tax-credits/cwtc-quarterly-stats.htm
	As at the beginning of April 2012, 454,900 families benefited.
	This publication takes a snapshot of the tax credits population and therefore shows the number of claimants at a particular point in time based on the family circumstances that we have been informed of at that time.

Commodity Markets

Sandra Osborne: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps he plans to improve regulation of the commodity markets.

Mark Hoban: The Government strongly supports the G20 commitments to improve the regulation, functioning, and transparency of financial and commodity markets, including position reporting. The Government are pursuing a number of legislative changes that will take these G20 commitments forward:
	Under the European Market Infrastructure Regulation (EMIR), the Government has agreed legislative requirements that will ensure that all standardised over-the-counter derivatives should be cleared, through central counterparties. This would help to contribute towards the broader aim of mitigating against systemic risk in financial markets, including commodities derivatives markets.
	In the European Commission's review of the markets in financial instruments directive (MiFID), the Government is supportive of the legislative proposals to ensure; (1) that where appropriate, standardised over-the-counter derivatives are traded on exchanges or electronic platforms; (2) there is strong regulatory oversight powers on commodities markets through the application of a position management regime based on strong supervision and market monitoring; and (3) periodic reporting of commodities data, and also ensuring more comparability across different trading venues. This will make it easier for regulators to analyse, interpret and act where necessary within commodity derivatives markets.
	In addition, under the European Commission's review of the Market Abuse Regulation, the Government is supportive of proposals to capture cross market manipulation between commodity derivative and spot commodity markets.

Company Accounts: Disclosure of Information

Caroline Lucas: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make it his policy to require multinational corporations based in the UK to publish a profit and loss account and limited balance sheet and cash flow information for each jurisdiction in which they trade as part of their annual financial statements; and if he will make a statement.

Norman Lamb: I have been asked to reply 
	on behalf of the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills.
	The UK has no plans to require any corporation registered in the UK to publish a profit and loss account and limited balance sheet and cash flow information for each jurisdiction in which they trade. This level of detail is not necessary for the financial statements achieve their objective of providing a true and fair view of a corporation's financial position. There are, however, negotiations at EU level that relate to accounting that have yet to be concluded.

Finance Act 2008

Robert Buckland: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many taxpayers are affected by the provisions of section 58 of the Finance Act 2008.

David Gauke: UK residents are taxable on their worldwide income wherever it arises—including situations where it arises by way of foreign partnerships. Section 58 of Finance Act 2008 was enacted to help put that beyond doubt and in so doing, made dear that a wholly artificial tax avoidance scheme involving a foreign partnership comprised of foreign trustees did not work. As section 58 retrospectively clarified existing legislation, its introduction had no affect on any taxpayer's tax position. HMRC has identified around 1,900 individuals who used the avoidance scheme or one of its variants and whose tax returns are currently under inquiry.

Financial Services: Advisory Services

Mark Garnier: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what information his Department holds on the number of independent financial advisers who have entered into administration as a result of rising indemnity costs; and if he will make a statement.

Mark Hoban: HM Treasury does not hold the information requested by the hon. Member.

Financial Services: Advisory Services

Mark Garnier: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether (a) he and (b) his Department have had discussions with the Financial Ombudsman Service on the case fees independent financial advisers are charged for every complaint made against them.

Mark Hoban: Treasury Ministers and officials have meetings and discussions with a wide variety of authorities as part of the process of policy development and delivery. Details of meetings that Ministers have with external stakeholders are published on a quarterly basis on the Treasury's website under the Government's transparency agenda.
	With regards to the case fees independent financial advisers are charged, this is a matter for the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS), whose day-to-day operations are independent from Government control and influence. I have asked the FOS to write to the hon. Member with the information requested. A copy of the response will be placed in the Library of the House.

Government Departments: Conditions of Employment

Brian Binley: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer 
	(1)  how often and in what circumstances Government departments will exercise their right to seek assurance that off-payroll engagees are meeting their income tax and national insurance contributions obligations; and whether this will occur for every contract or only be exercised in selected circumstances or roles;
	(2)  what evidence he requires an off-payroll engagee in the public sector to provide that their income tax and national insurance contributions obligations are being met.

Danny Alexander: On 23 May, I announced the findings of the “Review of the Tax Arrangements of Public Sector Appointees”. This set out the extent of senior off-payroll engagements across Government—and made recommendations to ensure that Government employers can assure themselves that their senior off-payroll staff are meeting their tax obligations.
	It will be for Government Departments and their arm's length bodies to determine when to exercise the right to assurance. However, I have announced that the Treasury will monitor departmental implementation and report back to me after one year.
	There are a number of ways in which off-payroll engagees can provide evidence that they are meeting their income tax and national insurance obligations. These include: showing that they are drawing salary via a payslip, or demonstrating that they are operating the anti-avoidance intermediaries legislation known as IR35.

Public Sector Debt

John Stanley: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the total current indebtedness of the public sector is in respect of unfunded public-sector pension liabilities; and if he will state the Government's policy on disclosing that indebtedness and including it in the Government's official figure of debt as a proportion of gross domestic product.

Danny Alexander: On 12 July Government published the unaudited summary Whole of Government Accounts for 2010-11 which transparently presented the unfunded public service pension liabilities that have accrued to the end of that financial year.
	The account discloses that at 31 March 2011, on an unaudited consolidated basis, the liability for unfunded public sector pension liabilities was £893.3 billion. The Government will publish Whole of Government Accounts annually, including unfunded public service pension liabilities.
	The official measure of public sector net debt (PSND) is produced in accordance with the European System of Accounts 1995. This figure includes past payments for public service pension schemes, it does not include an estimate of payments for future promises and therefore is a different measure of the liability than shown in the WGA. PSND is currently shown as a proportion of gross domestic product; please see the document at the following link:
	http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/d/psf.pdf

Public Sector Debt

John Stanley: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the total current indebtedness of public sector bodies is in respect of debts incurred under the private finance initiative; and if he will state the Government's policy on disclosing that indebtedness and including it in the Government's official figure of debt as a proportion of gross domestic product.

Danny Alexander: On 12 July Government published the unaudited summary Whole of Government Accounts for 2010-11 which transparently presents the public sector's liabilities and the ongoing commitments under PFI contracts.
	The account discloses that at 31 March 2011, on an unaudited consolidated basis, the liability for capital repayments under PFI contracts was £32 billion.
	The Government will publish Whole of Government Accounts annually, including PFI liabilities.

Revenue and Customs

Cathy Jamieson: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer pursuant to the answer of 17 May 2012, Official Report, column 301W, on revenue and customs, 
	(1)  what estimate he has made of the proportion of callers who will be able to access the information required from the HM Revenue and Customs helpline without having to wait to speak to an adviser;
	(2)  when he expects further options to be added to automated processes on HM Revenue and Customs helplines to reduce the number of customers who have to wait to speak to an adviser.

David Gauke: HMRC plans to begin to enhance the automated solutions available to callers during 2012-13.
	In 2011-12 around 19% of calls were handled by automated messaging with no need for the customer to call back or hold to speak to an adviser.
	Once the enhanced automated solutions begin to be introduced HMRC expects the proportion of callers able to access the information required from the HM Revenue and Customs helpline without having to wait to speak to an adviser to increase further.

Civil Servants: Training

Michael Fallon: To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what plans he has to encourage the development of finance skills in the Civil Service.

Francis Maude: holding answer 16 July 2012
	For too long the civil service has lacked finance skills. The Civil Service Reform Plan, published on 19 June 2012, notes that we will produce by the autumn, for the first time, a five-year capabilities plan for the whole civil service. This plan will identify which skills and capabilities are in deficit, and set out how gaps will be filled. In addition, the plan notes that:
	“financial management across the civil service needs to be further strengthened, and the finance functions in departments and agencies given greater authority.”
	This will be accomplished primarily through the Finance Transformation Programme (FTP).

Electronic Government

Tom Blenkinsop: To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what the cost to the public purse was of the (a) government.uk and (b) directgov website in the latest period for which figures are available.

Francis Maude: The budget for 2011/12 and the financial year to date of the Gov.uk, alpha and beta sites is approximately £4.6 million.
	The cost to the public purse of the directgov website in the latest period for which figures are available (2010/11) is £21.392 million. This is published on the Cabinet Office website at:
	http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/sites/default/files/resources/reporting-on-website-progress-Oct2011.pdf
	Moving departmental websites onto Gov.uk will, in due course, realise significant savings for the taxpayer.

Pay

Gareth Thomas: To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office how many staff working for his Department, its Executive agencies and non-departmental public bodies are employed through off-payroll engagements costing less than £58,200 per annum; and if he will make a statement.

Francis Maude: Since 2010 the Cabinet Office has applied strict controls on the engagement of consultants, interim managers and specialist contractors who may not be engaged without prior approval from the Cabinet Office Approvals Board.
	Approval is only given to engage contractors and agency staff if a case can be made that shows that the use of such non-payroll resource is 'operationally necessary', could not be fulfilled by an existing civil servant, and offers value for money.
	Annual expenditure by the Cabinet Office on consultancy fell dramatically in 2011-12 and in 2010-11 expenditure was around a third of what it was in 2009-10. Expenditure on temporary staff was also reduced by more than 40%.
	The Cabinet Office has 35 contractors and agency staff whose contracts are expected to cost less than £58,200. Of these, seven are expected to cease over the course of the next few months, and the rest remain under review.
	Sometimes there is a requirement for a contractor with specific knowledge and expertise to be engaged for a longer period to see through a big project—just as any private sector organisation would do. It makes sense, under these circumstances, to use a contractor when the alternative would be to recruit a permanent employee which would incur more ongoing, longer term cost to the taxpayer.

Permanent Secretaries

Stephen Barclay: To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office pursuant to the question following the statement made on 19 June 2012, Official Report, columns 743-6 on civil service reform, by what date the objectives for permanent secretaries will be published; how often such objectives will be updated; how many permanent secretaries in operational roles have two or more years commercial or operational experience.

Francis Maude: holding answer  3 July  2012
	Permanent Secretaries' objectives will be published shortly and updated periodically. Information on permanent secretaries' professional experience will also be published shortly.

Press Officers

Rachel Reeves: To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office how much was claimed in reimbursable expenses by press officers in his Department, its agencies and arm's length bodies since May 2010.

Francis Maude: holding answer 11 June 2012
	This information is not normally held centrally in the form requested.

Public Sector: Procurement

Gordon Banks: To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office 
	(1)  what mechanisms exist to prevent contractors for public sector projects from revising their initially proposed payment figures to subcontractors upon completion of a project;
	(2)  what steps he is taking to prevent incomplete payments from being made by construction industry contractors working on public sector projects.

Francis Maude: The Government is increasingly making use of Project Bank Accounts, which ensure that subcontractors down to at least tier 3 of supply chains are paid directly and promptly.
	Where Project Bank Accounts are not used the requirement for contractors to pay their subcontractors within 30 days—in line with the Government's Prompt Payment Code—is specified in contract terms.
	We are also encouraging subcontractors to use the 'Mystery Shopper' service to report instances to us where this is not happening. We regularly publish details of investigated cases on the Cabinet Office website.

Staff

Stewart Hosie: To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office how many staff of his Department were in the Civil Service redeployment pool on the latest date for which figures are available; and how many of these had been in the redeployment pool for more than six months at that date.

Francis Maude: As at 30 June 2012 there were two staff in the redeployment pool in the Cabinet Office and its non-departmental public bodies. These staff are allocated to short term critical projects.

CDC

Caroline Lucas: To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what guidance his Department has issued to CDC on the reporting of corruption allegations.

Stephen O'Brien: CDC takes all allegations of corruption seriously and complies with all relevant legal requirements. CDC has issued detailed business integrity policies and procedures to all employees, alongside on-going training. This ensures that CDC's commitment to integrity and legal compliance is followed, including procedures dealing with anti-corruption, anti-bribery, anti-money laundering and other important matters. CDC also has a team with dedicated personnel responsible for monitoring and addressing corruption compliance issues. CDC regularly reports to DFID on all such matters.
	DFID worked with CDC to develop a new complaints mechanism. This allows those who have been negatively affected by a breach in CDC's Investment Code to complain directly to CDC. The Investment Code has a governance section which includes corruption and anti-bribery. CDC investigates these complaints and, if eligible, seek a solution that addresses the complaint as quickly as possible.

Developing Countries: Education

Alison McGovern: To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what steps his Department (a) is taking and (b) plans to take to work with the private sector to deliver education for poor people in developing countries; and what (i) current and (ii) proposed initiatives will be supported or funded by his Department's country programmes.

Stephen O'Brien: The Department for International Development (DFID) works to get the best possible outcomes for the poor. Over the comprehensive spending review period the UK has pledged to support nine million children in primary school, over half of whom will be girls, and two million in lower secondary. DFID's 2012 annual report shows that we are currently supporting 5.3 million children in primary education and 600,000 in lower secondary. We take a pragmatic, non-ideological stance on how services should be delivered. In addition to our extensive support to public sector delivery of education, we also support non-state education providers, including the low cost private sector.
	In September 2011, the UK launched the Girls' Education Challenge (GEC) which will galvanise innovation in the non-state sector to support up to an additional one million of the world's poorest girls through a full cycle of schooling. The GEC is developing strategic partnerships with the corporate sector to incentivise investment in girl's education including new ways to improve the quality of teaching and learning for girls. DFID is currently working on the design of a global, public and free internet database. This will profile non-state education programmes with a view to facilitating the scale up of non-state education innovations for poor people. DFID is also developing programmes to support quality, non-state education provision in four countries. In Pakistan DFID plans to support up to 200,000 children in low cost private schools in Sindh Province. In India an additional 13,000 children in slums will be reached with DFID support to the non-state provider “Gyan Shala”. DFID-Nigeria is developing a programme to improve the functioning of the Lagos education market, with a provisional target of reaching 380,000 children. DFID-Kenya plans to launch a new programme to research the constraints on low cost private schools and to help the private education sector meet the needs of poor people.

Developing Countries: Poliomyelitis

Tony Cunningham: To ask the Secretary of State for International Development with reference to the 65th World Health Assembly, what plans he has to meet non-governmental organisations and charities to discuss the intensification of the global polio eradication initiative.

Stephen O'Brien: The Department for International Development (DFID) is a major contributor to the Global Polio Eradication Initiative and remains firmly committed to polio eradication. In January 2011 at the World Economic Forum in Davos, the Prime Minister pledged an additional £40 million for 2011-12, effectively doubling our contribution last year and this.
	DFID is actively engaged in polio eradication efforts and meets regularly with partners to discuss issues. DFID is considering its support from 2013.

Food: Prices

William Bain: To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment his Department has made of the effects on health and well-being of (a) young children and (b) others of temporary food price spikes.

Stephen O'Brien: The UK's Future of Food and Farming report (2011) showed that high and volatile food prices threaten good nutrition. Pregnant women and young children are at greatest risks as their nutritional needs are higher. High prices directly impact on the poor who purchase most of their food as they have to spend more on staple foods, making less more nutritious foods unaffordable.
	The specific effects of temporary food price spikes on health and well-being of young children and others is difficult to measure. The UK is working with partners in the G8 and the G20 to address food price volatility, including a global market information system supported by the G20, programmes to improve regional food markets and trade; and investments in smallholder agriculture in many parts for Africa and Asia to improve availability of food at affordable prices.

Kenya

Alison McGovern: To ask the Secretary of State for International Development with reference to his Operational Plan for Kenya 2011-15, what evidence he used to reach his conclusion that private schools are the most cost effective way to get out-of-school children into the classroom in slum areas with limited state schooling capacity.

Stephen O'Brien: A study by the Department for International Development has shown that there are at least 300,000 children in low cost private schools for the poor in Kenya, most of which are located in or around the many urban slums in Kenya's larger towns and cities. The study also showed that low cost private schools typically charge around £30 per year for each student, considerably less than the £70 or so that it costs to educate a child in a state school according to Government of Kenya figures. Data from the Kenyan Ministry of Education further show that schools in urban centres are already more than full, and would require substantial expansion to accommodate these additional children, which would take several years

Overseas Aid

Rushanara Ali: To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what steps his Department takes to monitor the effectiveness of poverty reduction programmes delivered by Private Sector Development and funded through decentralised spending decisions.

Stephen O'Brien: All of the Department for International Development's (DFID's) programmes—including private sector programmes funded through country offices—are subject to a rigorous monitoring process. DFID uses a value for money framework to assess the effectiveness and efficiency of all projects, with specific indicators determined on a case-by-case basis. All proposals for DFID funding must be accompanied by a business case. This is the main record of the proposal, summarising value for money considerations and intended results. Indicators for tracking effectiveness are included in the logical framework, which is an annex to the business case. DFID's monitoring and evaluation processes include an annual review against the indicators in the logical framework and require an assessment of whether a project remains good value for money. The project database (projects.dfid.gov.uk/) provides access to business cases, logical frameworks and annual reviews.
	Further information on how we measure progress against our objectives is available on the DFID website
	http://www.dfid.gov.uk/About-us/How-we-measure-progress/

Overseas Aid

Alison McGovern: To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what criteria will be used to evaluate the performance of each of his Department's proposed cash-on-delivery aid programmes; and who will evaluate those programmes.

Stephen O'Brien: We have designed three payment by results (PBR) (also known as cash on delivery) pilots and independent evaluation is built in to each of these to learn from this innovative approach. The evaluations are tailored to the individual pilots. The key criterion to evaluate performance is whether PBR leads to additional results. In addition the evaluations will look at how PBR works, in order that we can apply lessons to future design and implementation.
	Independent contractors are hired to evaluate each of our pilots: Cambridge Education for our Ethiopia pilot and the Liverpool Associates in Tropical Health for our pilot in Northern Uganda. We are in the process of contracting an independent evaluator for our Rwanda pilot.

South Sudan

Jim Cunningham: To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assistance the Government is giving to the Government of South Sudan on (a) malnutrition and (b) hygiene.

Stephen O'Brien: The UK is committed to helping deliver health care to the people of South Sudan. Our development goals in South Sudan over the next three years will give over 469,000 people access to clean water and sanitation; help 250,000 people get enough food to eat; and enable 2 million people receive life-saving health care and nutrition. In addition, the UK is a key supporter of the current humanitarian response in South Sudan, contributing £15 million to the Common Humanitarian Fund which will help to provide clean water for 130,000 people. We have also allocated £10 million to the World Food Programme to help feed 100,000 people through the hunger gap period this year.
	In the health facilities supported by the UK's contribution to the Basic Services Fund, we run programmes to educate people about the importance of hygiene, 23,000 people were reached in 2010-11. This programme is also extended to children attending local schools.

Sub-Saharan Africa

Tony Cunningham: To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what his policy is on support or funding for low cost private schools in Sub-Saharan Africa.

Stephen O'Brien: The UK Government takes a pragmatic, non-ideological stance on how services should be delivered. The Department for International Development (DFID) supports private sector education providers where we believe they will increase choice, equity, value for money, and learning outcomes. Support to non-state education providers complements the UK's extensive support to public sector delivery of education. In Nigeria, for example, we are researching the educational choices of low income parents, with a view to improving low-cost private education alongside existing UK support to reform the public education sector. We are also currently developing a low-cost private sector education programme in Kenya.
	From 2011-15, the UK will support 9 million children in primary school, over half of whom will be girls, and 2 million in lower secondary school. In addition, DFID has launched a new Girls' Education Challenge, which will galvanise innovation in the non- state sector to support up to an additional 1 million of the world's poorest girls through a full cycle of schooling.

UN Women

Rushanara Ali: To ask the Secretary of State for International Development 
	(1)  what discussions he has had with his overseas counterparts on encouraging the international community to meet the resource and funding shortage for UN Women;
	(2)  what recent assessment he has made of the performance of UN Women against the four priorities set out in the Multi-lateral Aid Review; and what consequent decisions he has taken on the level of future UK funding for that organisation;
	(3)  against which criteria his Department plans to assess the performance of UN Women in advance of taking a decision on whether to continue funding that organisation beyond 2015;
	(4)  what his policy is on future UK financial support for UN Women.

Stephen O'Brien: The Multilateral Aid Review (MAR) identified four key priority reform areas for UN Women: delivery of programmes at the country level; results management; transparency; and cost effectiveness. The Department for International Development will review progress against these reform priorities in 2013. This review will determine the level of funding for 2013-14 and 2014-15. In addition, we regularly monitor progress with UN Women on follow up to the MAR.
	We will continue to fund UN Women up till 2015, based on their ability to perform, but beyond that no decision has been taken.
	The UN Women annual report notes that in 2011, contributions to UN Women totalled $235 million, representing a 33% increase from 2011. Despite missing its 2011 funding targets this shows a real commitment to UN Women by other donors. We continue to work closely with UN Women and other donors to ensure it is as effective an organisation as it can be.

Reconfiguration: South-east London

Clive Efford: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the cost was to South London Healthcare NHS Trust of the delay in implementing the proposals contained in the “A Picture of Health” consultation on the reconfiguring of local health services in south-east London.

Simon Burns: Implementation of “A Picture of Health” has not been subject to delay. Between May and December 2010, NHS London carried out a thorough review of the proposals against the Secretary of States “four tests” that all reconfiguration schemes must meet.

Patient Outcomes

Simon Hughes: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress the NHS is making in improving outcomes for patients; and if he will make a statement.

Andrew Lansley: Since last December, we have published data against 34 indicators in the NHS Outcomes Framework. Where trend data is available, the majority of indicators suggest performance has maintained or improved. This includes MRSA infections down by 25% and C difficile infections down by 17% in 2011-12 compared with 2010-11.

Cancer

Julie Hilling: To ask the Secretary of State for Health 
	(1)  if he will ensure that data collected by the forthcoming National Cancer Patient Experience Survey is published by equality group within tumor types;
	(2)  what progress his Department has made in providing information to commissioners on (a) the age profile of local cancer populations, (b) the outcomes and experiences of local patients by age and (c) how their performance compares with other areas; and if he will make a statement.

Paul Burstow: A major focus of activity for the National Cancer Intelligence Network (NCIN) has been the development and publication of comparative information or 'profiles'. Profiles for general practitioner practices, commissioners and individual multidisciplinary teams mean that cancer services and outcomes can be benchmarked across the treatment pathway.
	The NCIN has also published a range of data reports that are providing valuable insight into cancer patient outcomes across England. These have included data on surgical resection rates, 30-day post-operative mortality after colorectal surgery and pancreatic cancer trends in younger people. Wherever possible, all NCIN reports are published broken down by equality characteristic. All new datasets include gender, socio-economic deprivation and age, including older people and children, teenagers and young adults.
	The National Report of the 2010 Cancer Patient Experience Survey, published in December 2010, recorded the views of over 67,000 cancer patients treated across 158 trusts against over 50 scored questions. A key part of disseminating the 2010 results has been benchmarking the performance of trusts against one-another. The bespoke trust level, reports display the results for each question in the survey benchmarked against other trusts and also benchmarks by teams within trusts where numbers allowed.
	The fieldwork for the National Cancer Patient Experience Survey 2011-12 is finished and analysis is under way. Data collected from the 2011-12 National Cancer Patient Experience Survey will be published by equality group within cancer-type groupings where sufficient numbers allow, and a report will be placed on the website of our survey supplier Quality Health.
	The 2011 survey will show who has really improved and where further action is required. National and trust level reports are expected to be published later this summer.

Cancer: Drugs

Sarah Wollaston: To ask the Secretary of State for Health 
	(1)  how many patients in each parliamentary constituency have received access to drugs on the Cancer Drugs Fund since its creation;
	(2)  how many patients (a) under the age of five, (b) between the age of five and 10 and (c) between the age of 10 and 16 years have received access to drugs through the Cancer Drugs Fund since its creation; and what the total cost for this treatment has been.

Paul Burstow: Information on patients funded through the Cancer Drugs Fund is not collected at parliamentary constituency level. Information on the age of patients who have received cancer drugs is also not collected.

Cancer: Older People

Annette Brooke: To ask the Secretary of State for Health 
	(1)  what progress has been made on the work led by his Department, the National Cancer Equality Initiative and Macmillan Cancer Support to test new approaches to clinical assessment for older patients;
	(2)  what steps his Department is taking to encourage multidisciplinary teams to undertake patient-level equity audits; and if he will make a statement.

Paul Burstow: We are working with Macmillan Cancer Support and Age UK on a £1 million programme to improve cancer care for older people. The programme will help us to deliver improved outcomes by ensuring that older people’s needs are properly assessed and met.
	The programme consists of 14 pilot sites across the country to improve intervention rates for people over 70 with cancer. The pilots are introducing new ways of assessing an older person for cancer treatment, offering short-term practical support for older people undergoing cancer treatment and addressing any age discrimination in cancer services by identifying and meeting the training needs of all professionals working with older people.
	To date, over 500 people have received assessment as part of the project. The effectiveness and feasibility of this intervention is currently being evaluated. The pilots will report back in September 2012 and the final report and recommendations will be published in December 2012.
	“Improving Outcomes: A Strategy for Cancer”, published on 12 January 2011, said that multidisciplinary teams (MDTs) are being encouraged to embed equalities into clinical practice. The National Cancer Action Team (NCAT) and the National Cancer Intelligence Network have been developing patient characteristics profiles for breast and bowel cancer MDTs, and NCAT will be working with cancer networks to develop MDT equity audits. We are aware of good progress being made by Lancashire and South Cumbria Cancer Network, who will be working closely with local clinicians to refine their patient characteristics profiles. Good practice will be shared through other cancer networks and the National Cancer Equality Initiative.
	As part of their National Cancer Peer Review Programme self-assessment, under the key theme of structure and function of the service, MDTs are requested to comment how many patients by equality characteristic (race, age and gender) they diagnosed/treated in the previous year.

Care Homes

Alison McGovern: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he plans to take to ensure that changes in local council social care budgets do not affect the supply of residential care homes.

Paul Burstow: The level of residential care provision is not determined solely by local council social care budgets. The supply of care home places is governed principally by demand, which comes from both public commissioners, such as local councils and the national health service and private purchasers of services.
	According to the Care Quality Commission, there are approximately 18,000 care and nursing homes in England, with around 460,000 places, in England at present. We are informed by the NHS Information Centre that, during 2010-11 (the latest available data) the number of people receiving permanent council-supported residential care was 213,000. A further 72,000 received short-term residential care during the year.
	The remainder of places are purchased by those who fund their own care. The Department does not collect information on occupancy levels in care homes. However, independent analysts, such as Laing and Buisson, estimate there to be a national vacancy rate of around 10% in the sector at present. The Department does not envisage or expect that there will be a shortage of places.
	The Government has allocated an additional £7.2 billion by 2014-15 to councils to support the delivery of social care, plus an additional £300 million from the Care and Support White Paper. This funding, together with an ambitious programme of efficiency, should enable councils to protect people’s access to services and deliver new approaches to improving their care.

Care Homes

Alison McGovern: To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will extend the protection offered to local authority arranged care recipients under the Human Rights Act 1998 to care recipients who are self funded.

Paul Burstow: The Government's view is that all providers of publicly arranged health and social care services, including private and voluntary sector providers, should consider themselves to be bound by the duty imposed by section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998, not to act in a way which is incompatible with a convention right.
	Any amendment to the Human Rights Act in relation to third sector and private providers of home care, to specify explicitly that they are subject to the section 6 duty, risks casting doubt about the interpretation of the Human Rights Act in other sectors. Each time specific provision is made with respect to a particular type of body, we weaken the applicability of the general test and raise doubt about all those bodies that have not been specified explicitly in the legislation.
	The Government has established a Commission to look at how human rights are protected in the United Kingdom to see if things can be done better and in a way that reflects our traditions. The Commission is due to report by the end of this year.
	I and my noble Friend, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State (Earl Howe), are to host a round table discussion on 19 September, at which we will seek the views of key partners and stakeholders to establish how, both individually and collectively, we will work to promote and protect peoples' human rights in health and social care services.
	The round table will be a one-off event, hosted by the Department, to facilitate a discussion on the promotion and protection of human rights of people using social care services. It will look at how government strategy on adult social care contributes to improvements in this area.
	Partners present at the roundtable will identify what actions they are taking to deliver improvements in the promotion and protection of human rights. The event will focus upon the principal aim of preventing abuse of people's human rights, rather than concentrating on routes of redress, once abuse has actually occurred.
	The Department will consider any recommendations made on the day and will continue to work closely with key stakeholders in this area.

Care Homes: Fees and Charges

Esther McVey: To ask the Secretary of State for Health 
	(1)  what information his Department holds on whether private care homes in receipt of registered nursing care contributions payments reflect such payments in the level of fees payable by self-funding residents;
	(2)  what the average weekly cost is to the NHS of NHS-funded nursing care contributions paid to residents in private nursing homes; and what steps his Department takes to monitor whether such homes use those contributions for the purpose of patient care;
	(3)  whether private care homes in receipt of registered nursing care contribution payments are reflecting such payments in the fees charged to self-funding residents.

Paul Burstow: National health service-funded nursing care is the funding contribution provided by the NHS to homes providing nursing to support the provision of nursing care by a registered nurse for those assessed as eligible. Once the need for such care is agreed, it is the responsibility of primary care trusts to pay a flat rate contribution towards these costs.
	Currently, the weekly flat rate is £108.70. However, those people assessed prior to October 2007 as being eligible for the higher rate contribution, continue to qualify for this higher rate payment, currently £149.60, unless their nursing needs have diminished or ceased.
	The home must provide a written contract or statement of terms and conditions to the resident, or the resident's family, setting out how much the NHS is contributing to the nursing care of the individual concerned and how this payment reduces the fees being paid for private care. It should include the care and services covered by the fee, the level of the fees and any additional services available at extra cost. Such contracts and the charges made by care homes are a matter between providers and purchasers of care. The Department does not monitor these centrally.

Care Homes: Vetting

Steve Rotheram: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to create an offence of not undertaking full Criminal Record Bureau checks on staff working with vulnerable people in care homes.

Paul Burstow: Providers of care homes in England are required to register with the Care Quality Commission and to meet a series of registration requirements that set the essential levels of safety and quality. Failure to comply with the essential levels is a criminal offence. Under the requirement relating to workers, service providers must have available an enhanced criminal records check for all eligible staff.
	In addition, it is a criminal offence to knowingly employ a person to work with adults in a care home who is barred by the Independent Safeguarding Authority (ISA). The ISA bars people automatically if they commit the most serious criminal offences and consider a person's criminal record when making their barring decisions.

Community Health Services: Suffolk

Jamie Reed: To ask the Secretary of State for Health 
	(1)  what assessment he has made of the decision to award Suffolk community health services to Serco; and whether experience of operating county-wide community health services was a qualifying criteria for organisations wishing to provide such services;
	(2)  if he will assess the comparative costs of the (a) current provider of Suffolk community health services and (b) Serco bid for those services;
	(3)  whether NHS Suffolk undertook any public consultation regarding the transfer of Suffolk community health services from the NHS to the private sector.

Simon Burns: The awarding of the contract to provide Suffolk community health services is a local decision by Suffolk Primary Care Trust (PCT), assured by the Strategic Health Authority, NHS Midlands and East. Therefore, the Department has not made an assessment of this decision. It is the responsibility of Suffolk PCT to ensure that the contract provides good value for money.
	Suffolk PCT did not undertake a public consultation because there will be no change to services. Patients will continue to receive the same high quality care.

Consultants

Chris Skidmore: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the cost was of external consultancy for each public body for which his Department is responsible in the latest period for which figures are available; for which projects such consultancy was commissioned; and what the cost of each project was.

Simon Burns: The Department submits a monthly consultancy spend tracker report to Cabinet Office Government Procurement which captures total spend information on consultancy together with information on new contracts let or extended by the Department and the arm's length bodies and agencies for which it is responsible. This consultancy expenditure in May 2012 by the Department's arm's length bodies and agencies is set out in the following table. The figures are based on the definition of consultancy services provided by Cabinet Office Government Procurement (formerly the Office of Government Commerce). Information on the individual projects against which this expenditure is incurred and on the spend for each project is not available. To provide that information would incur a disproportionate cost.
	
		
			 Arm's length body or agency Expenditure in May 2012 (£) 
			 Council For Healthcare Regulatory Excellence 3,361 
			 Health and Social Care Information Centre 44,293 
			 Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority 24,258 
			 Human Tissue Authority 12,246 
			 Monitor 1,160,721 
			 National Patient Safety Agency 22,563 
			 NHS Blood and Transplant 325,592 
			 NHS Institute for Innovation and Improvement 19,968 
			 NHS Litigation Authority 20,000 
			 Food Standards Agency 0 
			 Medicine and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency 0 
			 Care Quality Commission 0

Fractures: Older People

Annette Brooke: To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will include the prevention of fragility fractures in older people in his mandate to the NHS Commissioning Board. [R]

Paul Burstow: Our ‘NHS care objectives: A draft mandate to the NHS Commissioning Board’ was published for consultation on 4 July. The draft mandate focuses on the ultimate outcomes of care that matter to patients and professionals, based on the NHS Outcomes Framework. The draft proposes to set the board stretching ambitions to improve against each of the five domains of the framework. Although we propose that the mandate avoids singling out specific clinical conditions or patient groups, in order to promote local autonomy and avoid distorting clinical priorities, the prevention of fragility fractures is relevant to several of the care objectives.
	Because serious fragility fractures are a recognised factor in early mortality, prevention is relevant to achieving the objectives set in Domain 1—Preventing people from dying prematurely. Because osteoporosis is a chronic and progressive long-term condition and good management can help prevent fragility fractures, prevention is relevant to Domain 2—Enhancing quality of life for people with long-term conditions. Because fragility fractures can occur in hospitals and other care settings, prevention is relevant to Domain 5—Treating and caring for people in a safe environment and protecting them from avoidable harm.
	The consultation on the draft mandate closes on 26 September. Copies of the consultation documents have already been placed in the Library, and can be found at:
	www.mandate.dh.gov.uk

Health Services: Equality

Annette Brooke: To ask the Secretary of State for Health if his Department will issue guidance to ensure that all professional regulatory organisations review and, if necessary, revise their standards, codes of conduct and education programmes to advance equality and to ensure that age discriminatory behaviour is identified as unacceptable; and if he will make a statement.

Anne Milton: The health and care professions regulatory bodies are statutory bodies which are independent of Government. The Secretary of State for Health, my right hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr Lansley), has no powers to direct the way that they undertake their functions. However, the Government intends to commence provisions of the Equality Act later this year which will prohibit age discrimination in the provision of services. Under the Equality Act, the health professions regulators will be under a duty to eliminate age discrimination and advance equality of opportunity for older people. We would expect these duties to be reflected in the way that the professional regulators undertake all of their functions, including those in respect of setting standards for regulated professionals.

Health Services: Older People

Alison McGovern: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the effect of GP commissioning on the provision of hospital services for older people.

Simon Burns: The Health and Social Care Act 2012 provides for Clinical Commissioning Groups (CCGs) to become responsible for commissioning the majority of NHS services. CCGs will be required to involve other local health and social care professionals to understand the needs, of local populations and how to work with their local populations to design care pathways and services that meet those needs.
	Health and wellbeing boards will also provide the vehicle to enable local authorities to work in partnership with CCGs and other community partners to deliver meaningful joint health and wellbeing strategies which will in turn set the local framework for commissioning of health, social care and public health, maximising the opportunities for integrating health and social care.
	This should mean that groups such as older users of hospital services experience health and care services that are better joined up and better meet their needs as individuals.

Health Services: Older People

Alison McGovern: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he expects the NHS Commissioning Board to take to ensure continuous and open communication between consultants and other medical staff and an older person's next of kin or representative.

Paul Burstow: The NHS Commissioning Board is subject to a legal obligation to publish guidance on information sharing. Best clinical practice would be to share information appropriately with all who have a 'need to know'.
	It may also be helpful to explain that an independent panel of experts chaired by Dame Fiona Caldicott is conducting a review of information governance on behalf of the Secretary of State for Health, the right hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr Lansley). The Review Panel will report its findings and make recommendations to the Secretary of State for Health. The review is considering the sharing of information with third parties. One of the topic areas is the communication of patient information between consultants and medical staff (and social care staff) and next of kin, representatives or carers.
	More information can be found at the following link:
	www.caldicott2.dh.gov.uk

Health Services: Older People

Alison McGovern: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what measures he plans to propose to foster the development of positive perceptions of older people in his White Paper on Social Care.

Paul Burstow: The White Paper “Caring for our future: reforming care and support” was published in July 2012, following a public engagement in 2011. The need for people who receive care and support—the majority of whom are older people—to be treated with dignity and respect was a key message from the engagement, and this has been reflected by the policies in the White Paper.
	In addition to the White Paper, the Government intends to bring in a ban of age discrimination in the provision of goods and services, from October this year. There will be no exceptions to the ban in health and social care, aside from a statutory exception that allows, for example, free prescriptions. The aim is to ban unjustifiable age discrimination against people aged 18 and over when accessing services and in the exercise of public functions. Harassment related to age and victimisation is also banned. Adults of all ages will benefit from better access to services and for the first time people will have a legal right to redress from the courts if they are unjustifiably discriminated against because of age.
	In July 2011, the Equality Delivery System (EDS) was made available to the national health service. The purpose of the EDS is to drive up equality performance and embed equality into mainstream NHS business. It has been designed to help NHS organisations—in the current and new NHS structures—to meet the requirements of the public sector Equality Duty, as well as equality aspects of other duties.

NHS Commissioning Board

Jack Dromey: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress he has made on incorporating the recommendations of the national neuromuscular work plan into the NHS Commissioning Board set-up; and if he will make a statement.

Paul Burstow: The work-plan will support a national approach to the commissioning of specialised neuromuscular services.
	We will set out an initial list of nationally commissioned services this summer, which will be subject to consultation with the Commissioning Board before subsequently being confirmed in regulations.

NHS: Finance

Chris Skidmore: To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many reviews into the financial position of NHS trusts his Department commissioned in each financial year since 1997; what the cost was of each such report; and if he will publish each such report.

Simon Burns: This information is not available in the format requested. However, since 2003 the Department has commissioned historic due diligence reviews on the financial position of national health service trusts who are applying for NHS foundation trust status. The number of reviews and the total cost in each year from 2003, is shown in the following table. The historic due diligence reports and working capital reviews are held by individual NHS trusts and not by the Department.
	In 2011 the Department commissioned McKinsey's and Co to review the financial position of 22NHS trusts who had private finance initiative schemes, which might effect the ability to achieve NHS foundation trust status. The cost of this review was £240,000.
	
		
			  Number of NHS trusts Amount (£) 
			 2003 25 1,068,500 
			 2005 15 1,486,563 
			 2006 32 2,989,917 
			 2007 33 3,409,695 
			 2008 39 4,717,189 
			 2009 48 5,618,655 
			 2010 17 3,191,478 
			 2011 10 1,285,060 
			 2012 26 3,117,784 
			 Total — 26,884,841 
			 Note: A number of contracts may not have been completed in the relevant year and some work may not have been finished where NHS trusts have deferred from the application process. Therefore, the total cost of the work may be less than stated.

NHS: Innovation

Chi Onwurah: To ask the Secretary of State for Health 
	(1)  when he plans to develop and publish an innovation scorecard to track compliance with the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence technology appraisals; and if he will make a statement;
	(2)  with reference to his Department's publication, Innovation, Health and Wealth, Accelerating Adoption and Diffusion in the NHS, when he plans to launch the innovation pipeline project.

Simon Burns: ‘Innovation Health and Wealth: accelerating adoption and diffusion in the NHS’ was published on the 5 December 2011 and we are making good progress on all recommendations.
	The NHS Confederation, Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry and the Association of British Healthcare Industries launched the Innovation Pipeline Project in February 2012.
	Development of the innovation scorecard is under way with a wide range of stakeholders. The first release will be published in September 2012.

Palliative Care

John Leech: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment his Department has made of the monetary value to the NHS of the contribution of informal carers for people at the end of life; and what plans he has to improve support for carers of people at the end of life.

Paul Burstow: We are very much aware of and greatly value the significant contribution that carers make to the care of those at the end of life. There is scope for debate about how best to put a financial value on this care but there can be no doubt about its huge value to those who receive care and to the wider community.
	No assessment has been undertaken by the Department, but some external organisations have made estimates of the monetary value of carers' contribution. However, formal services would not need to replace every hour of unpaid care: for example, carers may include among hours of unpaid care time spent with the cared for person, in case they should need help, but undertaking other activities. It does not include a valuation of the long-term impacts of intensive caring on the carer's own health and well-being or on the carer's career prospects and life-time earnings and pensions.
	The Care and Support White Paper, together with the draft Care and Support Bill, which the Government published on 11 July, set out the Government's plans for transformation of care and support. This is a historic step forward in relation to carers as the draft Bill, for the first time, includes provision for a new duty on local authorities to meet carers’ eligible needs for support. This will put them on the same footing as the people they care for.
	We think that there is much merit in providing free health and social care in a fully integrated service at the end of life and this is reflected in the White Paper. This was acknowledged in the independent Palliative Care Funding Review report and we will use the evaluation of the eight palliative care funding pilot sites to gather the data to inform this.

School Milk

Chris Skidmore: To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many settings in each local authority area claiming for the cost of free milk through the nursery milk scheme claimed more than 90 pence per pint in the latest period for which figures are available; and what the (a) highest and (b) median cost per pint for milk was in each local authority.

Anne Milton: The Department does not hold information centrally on the number of settings in each local authority (LA) area that claimed more than 90 pence per pint of free nursery milk in 2011-12. However we are able to provide figures as follows for the total number of settings that claimed more than 90p per pint in June 2012.
	Cost claimed by the child care settings in providing free nursery milk in the month of June 2012—more than 90p per pint
	Number of child care settings—8,962
	Information is not held centrally on the highest and median cost per pint of milk in each LA geographical area.

Steroid Drugs

Jo Swinson: To ask the Secretary of State for Health 
	(1)  what recent steps his Department has taken to inform the public of the health risks of anabolic steroids; how much has been spent to that end in the last 12 months; and if he will make a statement;
	(2)  how many people in each region (a) aged under 18 years and (b) in total were treated for poisoning by steroid in each of the last five years.

Anne Milton: Information and advice about anabolic steroids, including the health risks associated with using anabolic steroids, is provided by FRANK and NHS Choices. It is not possible to break-down the FRANK or NHS Choices budget to show the cost of providing information on a particular subject such as anabolic steroids.
	When used in clinical practice, doctors prescribing a course of anabolic steroids are expected to discuss potential side effects and to draw patients' attention to the additional information contained in the Patient Information Leaflet.
	The information in the following tables show counts of finished admission episodes by strategic health authority (SHA) of residence, for primary diagnoses of poisoning by steroids for all ages and for under 18-year-olds for 2006-07 to 2010-11.
	
		
			 Finished admission episodes (1)  with a primary diagnosis of steroid poisoning (2) , by SHA residence (3) , under 18 and all ages, 2006-07 to 2010-11 (4) 
			 Activity in English national health service hospitals and English NHS commissioned activity in the independent sector 
			   Under 18 
			 Strategic health authority of residence  2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 
			 Total  13 10 12 12 13 
			 East Midlands Strategic Health Authority Q33 1 1 1 3 1 
			 East of England Strategic Health Authority Q35 — — 1 — 1 
			 London Strategic Health Authority Q36 1 1 1 — 1 
			 North East Strategic Health Authority Q30 3 — 2 — 1 
			 North West Strategic Health Authority Q31 3 2 1 2 3 
			 South Central Strategic Health Authority Q38 — — 1 — 2 
			 South East Coast Strategic Health Authority Q37 2 2 2 2 1 
			 South West Strategic Health Authority Q39 2 1 1 2 — 
			 West Midlands Strategic Health Authority Q34 1 2 1 1 2 
			 Yorkshire and The Humber Strategic Health Authority Q32 — — — 2 1 
			 Other (including unknown)  — 1 1 — — 
		
	
	
		
			 Activity in English national health service hospitals and English NHS commissioned activity in the independent secto r 
			   All ages (including unknown) 
			 Strategic health authority of residence  2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 
			 Total  41 51 61 53 65 
			 East Midlands Strategic Health Authority Q33 3 2 9 4 9 
			 East of England Strategic Health Authority Q35 3 6 5 5 4 
			 London Strategic Health Authority Q36 6 3 7 2 6 
			 North East Strategic Health Authority Q30 4 2 6 5 4 
			 North West Strategic Health Authority Q31 10 9 8 10 12 
			 South Central Strategic Health Authority Q38 2 4 8 3 6 
			 South East Coast Strategic Health Authority Q37 3 7 5 3 4 
			 South West Strategic Health Authority Q39 4 2 5 8 11 
			 West Midlands Strategic Health Authority Q34 3 8 1 5 3 
			 Yorkshire and The Humber Strategic Health Authority Q32 2 7 5 7 6 
			 Other (including unknown)  1 1 2 1 0 
			 (1) Finished admission episodes A finished admission episode (FAE) is the first period of inpatient care under one consultant within one healthcare provider. FAEs are counted against the year in which the admission episode finishes. Admissions do not represent the number of inpatients, as a person may have more than one admission within the year. (2) Primary diagnosis The primary diagnosis is the first of up to 20 (14 from 2002-03 to 2006-07 and seven prior to 2002-03) diagnosis fields in the Hospital Episode Statistics (HES) data set and provides the main reason why the patient was admitted to hospital. ICD10 codes used: T38.5 Poisoning by other estrogens and progestogens (includes Antineoplastic, estrogen hormone steroids) T38.7 Poisoning by androgens and anabolic congeners (includes Anabolic steroids, Androgenic steroid, Antineoplastic, hormone steroids) (3) SHA/PCT of residence The strategic health authority (SHA) or primary care trust (PCT) containing the patient's normal home address. This does not necessarily reflect where the patient was treated as they may have travelled to another SHA/PCT for treatment. (4) Assessing growth through time HES figures are available from 1989-90 onwards. Changes to the figures over time need to be interpreted in the context of improvements in data quality and coverage (particularly in earlier years), improvements in coverage of independent sector activity (particularly from 2006-07) and changes in NHS practice. For example, apparent reductions in activity may be due to a number of procedures which may now be undertaken in outpatient settings and so no longer include in admitted patient HES data. Data quality: HES are compiled from data sent by more than 300 NHS trusts and PCTs in England and from some independent sector organisations for activity commissioned by the English NHS. The NHS Information Centre for health and social care liaises closely with these organisations to encourage submission of complete and valid data and seeks to minimise inaccuracies. While this brings about improvement over time, some shortcomings remain. Source: Hospital Episode Statistics (HES), Health and Social Care Information Centre

Thalidomide

Jim Dobbin: To ask the Secretary of State for Health 
	(1)  with reference to the answer of 19 October 2011, Official Report, column 1042W, on thalidomide, how the off-label prescription of thalidomide is monitored and controlled; and what scientific evidence has been provided in product licence applications to the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency to demonstrate the safety and efficacy of these products;
	(2)  how many product licences have been issued for the manufacture or supply of each of these products; to which companies; and how patients are informed that the products contain thalidomide;
	(3)  how many products containing thalidomide or thalidomide analogue compounds are licensed for use; and what the product names are.

Simon Burns: The distribution and supply of thalidomide is strictly controlled throughout the European Union in order to ensure that patients, both male and female, cannot receive the product without observing appropriate safeguards against pregnancy. In the United Kingdom, the Pregnancy Prevention Programme for thalidomide involves the restriction of supply to specifically registered pharmacies that have agreed to abide by the programme. The Pregnancy Prevention Programme is required to be implemented regardless of whether thalidomide is prescribed for the authorised indication (multiple myeloma), or for an unauthorised indication.
	Prescriptions can be dispensed in the UK only if they are accompanied by a dedicated Prescription Authorisation Form. The prescription authorisation form requires the indication for treatment with thalidomide to be recorded.
	The Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) has put in place measures to ensure that the maximum treatment duration for one prescription is four weeks for women of childbearing potential. Prescriptions can only be dispensed within seven days of the date of the prescription, and women who are capable of becoming pregnant must provide evidence of a recent negative pregnancy test prior to receiving each new prescription.
	According to the terms of the Marketing Authorisation for Thalidomide Celgene, the Marketing Authorisation Holder is required to conduct regular audits to confirm compliance with the requirements of the Pregnancy Prevention Programme. Audits are conducted annually based on the information recorded on the prescription authorisation forms. Pharmacies registered to supply thalidomide return the information in their prescription authorisation forms to the Marketing Authorisation Holder, who then collates and analyses the data supplied. The data are then compiled into a report, which is sent to the MHRA for information and comment. One of the items analysed during the conduct of the annual pharmacy audit is the indication for treatment with thalidomide. This allows the MHRA to monitor the nature and extent of prescription for unlicensed indications.
	As with all marketing authorisation applications, before thalidomide was granted a licence and became available in the UK they were fully evaluated in relation to the appropriate standards required in the relevant European Rules and Regulations on Medicinal Products. Data submitted in support of the application demonstrated that the safety and efficacy of the product were satisfactory in the claimed indication and patient population.
	There is only one authorised product available in the UK that contains thalidomide (Thalidomide Celgene 50mg Capsules, MA holder: Celgene Europe Ltd, Middlesex, UK).
	Marketed products are clearly labelled on both the outer container and in the patient information leaflet supplied with the medicine to provide the name of the active ingredient in addition to any brand name given to the product.
	Given that there is an obligation for the patient to sign an informed consent form and to be counselled as to the risks of thalidomide with every prescription, and that it must be recorded that counselling has taken place, it should not be possible for patients to receive Thalidomide Celgene in the UK without being aware that the product contains thalidomide.

Thalidomide

Jim Cunningham: To ask the Secretary of State for Health 
	(1)  what steps his Department is taking to ensure that its cost data captures the costs of thalidomide needs nationwide;
	(2)  what steps his Department is taking to ensure that standards in home care for thalidomiders are consistently high and at a specialist level.

Paul Burstow: Our expectation is that good quality home care should be available to anyone that needs it. The Care Quality Commission (CQC) is the independent regulator of health and adult social care providers in England and has a key responsibility in the overall assurance of essential levels of safety and quality of health and adult social care services. Under the Health and Social Care Act 2008, all providers of regulated activities, including national health service and independent providers, have to register with the CQC and meet a set of 16 safety and quality registration requirements.
	The 16 requirements reflect the essential levels of safety and quality of care that people should be able to expect, and are built around the main risks inherent in the provision of health and adult social care services.
	The CQC is responsible for developing and consulting on its methodology for assessing whether providers are meeting the registration requirements and published its “Guidance About Compliance” in March 2010.
	Failure to comply with the requirements is an offence, and under the 2008 Act, the CQC has a wide range of enforcement powers that it can use if the provider is not compliant.

Absenteeism

John Pugh: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what the absenteeism rate was in his Department in each of the last three years.

Henry Bellingham: The total number of working days lost through short and long term sick absence, for the financial years 2010-11 and 2011-12, are published in the Annual Departmental Report produced by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO), which can be accessed via:
	http://www.fco.gov.uk/en/publications-and-documents/publications1/annual-reports/departmental-report/
	The figures for the last three years are:
	
		
			  Number 
			 2011-12 19,290 
			 2010-11 26,555 
			 2009-10 27,804 
		
	
	The total number of days lost through sick absence in 2009-10 was 27,804. The figures for 2009-10 and 2010-11 include absences in FCO Services. FCO Services is now a Trading Fund of the FCO. The 2011-12 figure excludes FCO Services absences.

Bahrain

Richard Burden: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs for what reasons he did not support the joint statement on Bahrain proposed at the recent UN Human Rights Council; and if he will make a statement.

Alistair Burt: The UK remains concerned about the human rights situation in Bahrain and continues to raise this regularly with the Bahraini Government at the most senior levels.
	We did not sign up to the joint statement because we did not consider it appropriate at this stage to raise Bahrain under agenda item 4. While we agree with the substance of the Swiss-led statement, item 4 is reserved for highlighting situations of the most serious concern for human rights, and the UK does not believe that the situation in Bahrain is currently comparable with the situation in the other countries raised under this item, such as Syria. A number of other countries, including the US and other EU member states, agreed with this assessment and did not sign the statement.
	The UK made its concerns clear when we raised Human Rights in Bahrain under item 10 at the HRC. We noted that while progress has been made in a number of areas, much more must be done to address the continuing failings and to ensure the recommendations of the National Commission of Inquiry are implemented in full. In particular, we called on the Bahraini Government to ensure that the postponed visit of the Special Rapporteur on Torture goes ahead as soon as possible. As a long standing ally the UK will continue to support Bahrain in this work.

Burma

Rushanara Ali: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will press the Government of Burma to establish an independent inquiry, with international assistance, into the violence in Arakan State in that country.

Jeremy Browne: We are deeply concerned by the recent violence in Rakhine (Arakan) state. We are aware that the Burmese authorities have opened an inquiry into the recent violence. We will monitor this closely and will urge the Burmese Government to ensure that inquiry is able to work in a transparent manner and that its findings are balanced and credible.

Burma

Rushanara Ali: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will urge the government of Burma to stop the violence and persecution of Rohingyas in Arakan State in that country.

Jeremy Browne: The recent inter-communal violence in Rakhine State in western Burma has highlighted both the fragility of the situation in Burma, and drawn further and much needed attention to the plight of the Rohingya. I issued a statement on 10 June which expressed deep concern about the situation and urged all groups to open a dialogue to end the violence.
	On 12 June our ambassador met Burmese President Thein Sein. The ambassador emphasised our deep concern about the hostilities in Rakhine State, and urged him to make every effort to resolve the situation peacefully.
	On 22 June officials from our embassy in Rangoon raised our concerns over the lack of regular humanitarian aid access to Rakhine State and the closure of the border with Bangladesh with the Burmese Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
	We remain concerned about the humanitarian situation in Rakhine State and will continue to monitor this closely.

Burma

Rushanara Ali: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had on the situation in Arakan State, Burma with his counterparts in other EU member states and in the US.

Jeremy Browne: We are deeply concerned by the recent violence in Rakhine (Arakan) State. We regularly discuss the ethnic conflict in Burma and the specific issues affecting the Rohingya with our European and US colleagues. We are set to discuss the matter further at senior official level in Brussels on 18 July.

Burma

Rushanara Ali: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had on the situation in Arakan State, Burma with his counterparts in Bangladesh and India and in members states of the Association of South East Asian Nations.

Jeremy Browne: We regularly raise the ethnic conflict in Burma and the specific issues affecting the Rohingya with countries in the region, including the Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN), India and Bangladesh.
	Our high commissioner in Dhaka raised this issue with the Government of Bangladesh as part of an EU demarche in late June and officials from our high commission have continued to discuss it with the Bangladesh authorities since.
	We acknowledge Bangladesh's efforts in dealing with development and humanitarian issues in Cox's Bazar district over several decades and understand the challenges accepting further refugees would cause. We continue to urge Bangladesh to continue to provide treatment for individuals displaced from Burma in need of emergency medical care.
	In our meetings with ASEAN member states we continue to stress the important role that ASEAN and its members have in both supporting the reform process and resolving ethnic conflict in Burma. In particular, we have called on ASEAN member states to draw upon their own experiences to assist Burma's transition to democracy.

Ethiopia

Jeremy Corbyn: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent assessment he has made of the freedom of the press in Ethiopia.

Henry Bellingham: We are concerned about the increasing restrictions on the freedom of the press in Ethiopia, including recent convictions of journalists under the anti-terrorism legislation. We have raised these concerns with the Ethiopian Government at the highest level, including most recently on 12 July when I met with-the Ethiopian Deputy Prime Minister. Other developments have also made the operating environment for the press more difficult, including the passing of a law in July that restricts the ratio of advertising to news coverage.

Iran

Alec Shelbrooke: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what reports he has received on Iranian activity at the Parchin facility.

Alistair Burt: In the annex to its November 2011 report, the International and Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) states that it had been provided with information which indicates that Iran “constructed a large explosives containment vessel in which to conduct hydrodynamic experiments” at Parchin. It also received information alleging that Iran “was conducting high explosive testing” at the site. As the IAEA report details,
	“hydrodynamic experiments [...] which involve high explosives in conjunction with nuclear material or nuclear material surrogates, are strong indicators of possible weapon development.”
	At the same time as it continues to deny the Agency access, we are concerned that Iran is now undertaking sanitisation work at Parchin. The IAEA's most recent report of 25 May 2012 referred to a letter dated 2 May 2012 in which the Agency reiterated its request for early access to a specified location within the Parchin site. In the same letter, the Agency informed Iran that satellite imagery had shown that
	“at this location, where virtually no activity had been observed for a number of years, the buildings of interest to the Agency are now subject to extensive activities that could hamper the Agency's ability to undertake effective verification.”
	Inline with an IAEA Board of Governors resolution adopted on 18 November 2011, we continue to call on Iran to provide the Agency with “access to all relevant information, documentation, sites, material and personnel in Iran” in order to address the international community's concerns about the possible military dimensions to its nuclear programme.

Iran

Alec Shelbrooke: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what reports he has received of the access of International and Atomic Energy Agency inspectors to the Parchin facility in Iran.

Alistair Burt: In its November 2011 resolution, the International and Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Board of Governors calls on Iran to provide the Agency with
	“access to all relevant information, documentation, sites, material and personnel in Iran.”
	Since then, the IAEA has in successive reports reiterated its request for access to Parchin, including most recently in its report of 25 May 2012. In response to the agency's request in May, Iran stated that access would not be possible until agreement had been reached on a structured approach to clarify all outstanding issues. Despite the agency's efforts, Iran has so far failed to finalise agreement to such a structured approach, and continues to deny the agency the access it needs to be able to assure the international community that there are no ongoing activities relevant to the development of a nuclear explosive device.

Iraq

Jim Cunningham: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment his Department has made of reports that the Iraqi Government has been refusing to allow Iraqis who left as refugees to return to Iraq.

Alistair Burt: The British Government continues to make returns to Iraq on a case by case basis and Iraqis who have failed to establish an asylum claim can and do return voluntarily.

Kashmir

Steven Baker: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the allegations of human rights abuses made in the Channel 4 documentary, Kashmir's Torture Trail; and if he will make a statement.

Alistair Burt: We are aware of the Channel 4 documentary on Kashmir. We monitor developments in Kashmir closely and regularly raise concerns about the human rights situation on both sides of the Line of Control. The UK has consistently called for an end to all external support for violence in Kashmir. Prime Minister Singh has made it clear that human rights abuses by security forces in Kashmir will not be tolerated. We note that the Indian Government decided to allow the UN Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions to pay a fact-finding visit to Kashmir last March. We are following the investigations of the Jammu and Kashmir State Human Rights Commission. We welcome the initiative by Prime Minister Singh to appoint three interlocutors to engage with a wide range of interested parties to help resolve the situation in Indian-administered Kashmir. The Indian Government has recently published the interlocutors' report, which sets out a range of confidence building measures, including addressing human rights concerns. I understand that the Indian Government will take a decision on how to implement the report after a period of consultation.
	The long standing position of the UK is that it is for India and Pakistan to find a lasting resolution to the situation in Kashmir, one which takes into account the wishes of the Kashmiri people. It is not for the UK to prescribe a solution or to mediate in finding one. We welcome the positive steps being taken by Pakistan and India to build trust and confidence.

Middle East

Simon Kirby: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of recent reports of rocket fire from the Sinai Peninsula into Israel.

Alistair Burt: We are not aware of any confirmed reports of rocket fire from the Sinai peninsula into Israel. However, the British Government remains concerned about the security situation in the Sinai and we regularly raise this issue with the Egyptian authorities.
	On 22 June, I issued a statement expressing concern the escalation of violence around southern Israel and Gaza, including indiscriminate rocket fire into southern Israel.
	The UK continues to urge all parties to exercise restraint and prevent civilian casualties and loss of life.

Occupied Territories

Helen Grant: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with the government of Israel on ending Israeli settlements in area C of the west bank.

Alistair Burt: We remain concerned about the expansion of Israeli settlements and the demolition of Palestinian property in area C of the west bank (the area under full Israeli control). Both are contrary to Israel's obligations under international humanitarian law and harmful to the peace process. We continue to urge the Israeli authorities, including at the highest levels, to cease all settlement building and to desist from the demolition of Palestinian homes and infrastructure.
	These are concerns shared across Europe. The EU's Foreign Affairs Council, in Conclusions agreed on 14 May, called on Israel to meet its obligations regarding the living conditions of the Palestinian population in Area C, including by halting the forced transfer of the population and the demolition of Palestinian housing and infrastructure, ensuring access to water and addressing humanitarian needs. Together with our EU partners, we will continue to make this case to the Israeli Government.

Turkey

Jeremy Corbyn: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent assessment he has made of the freedom of the press in Turkey.

David Lidington: We share concerns expressed by the European Commission, OSCE, Council of Europe and others over the deterioration in freedom of expression in Turkey. We are particularly concerned about the high number of journalists currently imprisoned in Turkey.
	The Turkish Government has assured us that it is committed to improving the climate for freedom of expression. Parliament has just passed a judicial reform package which, we have been told, will reduce the number of people in pre-trial detention. We welcome news that a further judicial reform package aimed specifically at improving the climate for freedom of expression will be debated by the Turkish Parliament in the autumn. With our financial support, the Council of Europe will launch a project later this year aimed at promoting media freedom in Turkey.

Adoption

Gareth Johnson: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what the average length of time was to successfully complete the adoption process in the last (a) five and (b) 10 years.

Tim Loughton: The average time to successfully complete the adoption process in the last (a) five years was two years and seven months, and in (b) the last 10 years was two years and eight months.
	These averages are based on the time taken from the start of the child's last period of care to the date when the adoption order was made.
	Information on adopted children can be found in the Statistical First Release (SFR) 'Children Looked After by Local Authorities in England (including adoption and care leavers)—year ending 31 March 2011', which is available on the Department's website via the following link:
	http://www.education.gov.uk/rsgateway/DB/SFR/s001026/index.shtml
	The methodology used to answer this question follows that used in Table E2 of the SFR for the yearly average time between entry into care and adoption.

Adoption

Gareth Johnson: To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many couples in (a) Dartford constituency, (b) Kent and (c) England (i) successfully adopted a child and (ii) were rejected for adoption of a child in the last 10 years.

Tim Loughton: The Department collects information on looked after children adopted by single people, civil partners, married and unmarried (same sex and different sex) couples. Some couples adopt two or more children, and therefore the number of couples who adopt will be lower than the number of children they adopted. Information on the legal status of adopters of looked after children has been collected since 2006-07. Consequently, the number of looked after children adopted by couples can be provided only for the last five years.
	Figures for Kent and England are shown in the following tables.
	Figures for England have been taken from Table E3 of the Statistical First Release, “Children Looked After by Local Authorities in England (including adoption and care leavers)—year ending 31 March 2011”. This can be accessed at:
	http://www.education.gov.uk/rsgateway/DB/SFR/s001026/index.shtml
	Information at constituency level is not available. The Department does not collect data on the number of prospective adopters who have been considered unsuitable to adopt a looked after child.
	
		
			 Children looked after in Kent local authority who were adopted during the years ending 31 March by legal status of adopters (1) —Years ending 31 March 2007 to 2011 
			 Number 
			  2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 
			 All looked after children who were adopted during the year ending 31 March 90 90 75 70 60 
			 Legal status of adopters:      
			 Single adopter 10 10 (2)— (2)— (2)— 
			 Same sex couple not in civil partnership (2)— 0 0 (2)— 0 
			 Different sex unmarried couple (2)— (2)— (2)— (2)— 10 
			 Civil partnership couple 0 (2)— (2)— (2)— (2)— 
			 Married couple 80 75 70 60 45 
			 (1) Numbers have been rounded to the nearest 5. (2) Figures not shown in order to protect confidentiality. Source: SSDA 903 
		
	
	
		
			 Children looked after who were adopted during the years ending 31 March by legal status of adopters (1) —Years ending 31 March 2007 to 2011—Coverage: England 
			 Number 
			  2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 
			 All looked after children who were adopted during the year ending 31 March 3,330 3,180 3,330 3,200 3,050 
			 Legal status of adopters:      
			 Single adopter 290 270 270 280 290 
			 Same sex couple not in civil partnership 70 50 50 60 40 
			 Different sex unmarried couple 150 140 190 180 230 
			 Civil partnership couple 20 30 70 60 60 
			 Married couple 2,800 2,690 2,740 2,620 2,430 
			 (1) Numbers have been rounded to the nearest 10. Source: SSDA 903

Children in Care

Barry Sheerman: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what steps his Department is taking to ensure that young people leaving care have access to adequate financial support and employment advice.

Tim Loughton: In 2010 we introduced revised regulations and guidance on support for care leavers. These are intended to improve the quality of support, and bring greater consistency in local authority practice to help ensure all young people receive the same opportunities to succeed as their peers.
	Key entitlements for care leavers include duties on local authorities to:
	Provide support from a suitably qualified personal adviser up to age 21 or up to aged 25 if they are on an agreed education or training course (this includes providing access to careers advice);
	Develop and support the implementation of a pathway plan including how the young person will undertake education courses or gain employment;
	Pay a £2,000 Higher Education Bursary for all eligible care leavers;
	Support to make a successful financial transition to adulthood including access to emergency payments where necessary.
	Other key areas of Government support for care leavers include:
	Funding of the “From Care2Work” programme, run by the National Care Advisory Service, to improve employment opportunities for care leavers by offering young people work experience, and through apprenticeships to part and full time jobs in the public and private sector;
	Placing a duty on the Skills Funding Agency to prioritise funding for apprenticeships training for certain groups of young people who have secured an apprenticeship place. This includes 19 to 24-year-olds who have been in local authority care;
	Funding a new 16-19 further education bursary scheme which began at the start of the 2011/12 academic year. Looked after young people and care leavers are guaranteed a £1,200 bursary if they continue in full-time education.
	Giving priority for care leavers to access the Work Programme. This has been introduced to provide intensive personalised support for people who are at risk of long term unemployment.

Children: Day Care

Liam Byrne: To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many (a) after-school and (b) before-school places are available for children over the age of five.

Sarah Teather: The Government reports the number of Ofsted registered places in England in the Childcare and Early Years Providers Survey series. The latest report is for 2010.
	The number of after-school club places is provided below for each year from 2006. After-school clubs are defined here as facilities providing after school activities or childcare during term time to school aged children aged under eight, for more than two hours in any day and more than five days a year. Age break downs are not available. The equivalent information for before-school places is not collected.
	
		
			 Number of Ofsted registered places for after-school clubs (England) 
			  Ofsted registered places 
			 2006 260,100 
			 2007 259,900 
			 2008 282,700 
			 2009 272,500 
			 2010 368,100 
			 Source: 2010 Childcare and Early Years Providers Survey

Children: Day Care

Liam Byrne: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what information his Department holds on the average staff-child ratios for child care services for children in each age group.

Sarah Teather: Adult:child ratios are set out in the Early Years Foundation Stage statutory framework (EYFS) which sets learning and development and welfare standards that all early year providers must meet, for children from birth to five. For children aged six and seven ratios are set in regulations for the General Childcare Register (GCR).
	
		
			 Age of children Adult:child ratio 
			 Child care  
			 0 to two-year-olds 1:3 
			 Two-year-olds 1:4 
			 Three to five-year-olds 1:8 or 1:13 (applies between the hours of 8 am and 4 pm, where a person with Qualified Teacher Status, Early Years Professional Status or another suitable level 6 qualification is working directly with the children, provided that at least one other member of staff holds relevant level 3 qualification). 
			 Six to seven-year-olds 1:8 
			   
			 Child minding  
			 0 to seven-year-olds 1:6 A maximum of three may be young children, however where four and five-year-old children only attend the child minding setting before and/or after a normal school day, they may be classed as children over the age of five for ratio purposes. Normally, no more than one child may be under the age of one, however a child minder may be registered to care for two children under the age of one where they are able to demonstrate that they can meet and reconcile the individual needs of all the children being cared for. Exceptions to these ratios can be made for siblings and to provide continuity of care in certain circumstances, provided that the total number of children under the age of eight being cared for does not exceed six. 
		
	
	The revised EYFS which comes into effect on 1 September sets the same adult:child ratios for child care and child minding.

Children: Day Care

Liam Byrne: To ask the Secretary of State for Education 
	(1)  how many childcare places are funded by his Department by type of provider;
	(2)  how many childcare places (a) in total and (b) for children of each age his Department estimates are funded through its spending on (i) Sure Start and (ii) childcare.

Sarah Teather: The Department does not fund child care places. The Department provides funding to local authorities through the dedicated schools grant (DSG) to provide 15 hours a week of free early education for 38 weeks of the year for all three and four-year-olds.
	The number of three and four-year-old children benefiting from free early education in England, by type of provider, is shown in the table.
	
		
			 Number of three and four-year-old children benefiting from free early education (1, 2 ) by type of provider. England, 2012 
			  Three-year-olds Four-year-olds 
			 Private and voluntary providers(3) 364,610 112,940 
			    
			 Independent schools 15,170 17,370 
			    
			 Maintained nursery and state-funded primary schools(4): 242,640 503,740 
			 Nursery schools and nursery classes in primary schools 241,430 100,590 
			 Infant classes in primary schools(5) 1,220 403,160 
			    
			 State-funded secondary schools(6) 1,320 2,380 
			    
			 Special schools(7) 1,700 2,540 
			    
			 All providers 625,440 638,970 
			 (1 )Count of children aged three and four at 31 December in the previous calendar year. (2) Numbers of three and four-year-olds in schools may include some two-year-olds. (3) Includes some local authority day nurseries registered to receive funding. (4) Includes primary converter academies, primary sponsor-led academies and primary free schools. (5) Includes reception and other classes not designated as nursery classes. (6) Includes maintained secondary schools, secondary converter academies, sponsor-led academies, secondary free schools and city technology (7) Includes general hospital schools. Source: Early Years Census (EYC), School Census (SC), and School Level Annual School Census (SLASC) 
		
	
	This information can be found in the “Provision for Children under Five Years of Age in England: January 2012” Statistical First Release at the following link:
	http://www.education.gov.uk/rsgateway/DB/SFR/s001074/index.shtml
	The Department also provides funding for free early education places for less advantaged two-year-olds, currently through the early intervention grant (EIG). From September 2013, the Government is introducing a legal entitlement to free early education for two year olds. We estimate that around 150,000 children (approximately 20%) will be eligible for free places from September 2013, rising to around 300,000 (around 40%) from September 2014.

Runaway Children: Missing Persons

Barry Sheerman: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what steps his Department is taking to reduce the number of incidents in which a failure to track runaway and missing children results in them becoming vulnerable to abuse and exploitation.

Tim Loughton: Identifying and ensuring the safe return of children who go missing is a key part of the police service's child protection and wider safeguarding role. However, as the missing children and adults cross Government strategy makes clear, tackling missing persons issues requires a multi-agency response and co-ordination across a range of policies and operational partners including local authorities, who are key where children go missing.
	The Department is planning to consult on the statutory guidance on 'children who run away or go missing from home or care' to give local authorities a clearer understanding of their duties and more flexibility to decide on the arrangements which are suitable for their areas.
	The Department is also driving forward work to ensure that there is better and more transparent data about children who go missing from care (and who may often then be at risk of sexual exploitation). We have already written to all local authorities asking them to review their own data collections, and to check their figures against those collected by local police forces. The Department is now working with an expert group to develop a data collection system which is more meaningful and gives a much clearer picture of the numbers of children who go missing from care. Better local data collection will contribute to improved local strategies for minimising missing persons incidents and improving protection for children in care.

Schools: Peterborough

Stewart Jackson: To ask the Secretary of State for Education how much (a) revenue and (b) capital funding was provided (i) in cash terms and (ii) at 2012 prices to state (A) primary and (B) secondary schools in Peterborough in each year since 1997.

Nick Gibb: The information is as follows:
	Revenue Funding
	Average per pupil revenue funding figures, provided from the Department for Education to Peterborough city council, for pupils aged three to 10 (primary) and 11 to 15 (secondary) for the years 1997-98 to 2005-06 are as follows (Table 1 provides figures in cash terms and table 2 provides the equivalent real terms figures):
	
		
			 Table 1: Average per pupil revenue funding (cash) 
			  Peterborough (primary) Peterborough (secondary) 
			 1997-98 2,056 2,774 
			 1998-99 2,204 2,909 
			 1999-2000 2,430 3,117 
			 2000-01 2,650 3,385 
			 2001-02 2,846 3,612 
			 2002-03 3,013 3,866 
			 2003-04 3,336 4,125 
			 2004-05 3,569 4,480 
			 2005-06 3,845 4,751 
			 Notes: 1. Price base: cash. 2. Figures reflect relevant sub-blocks of Standard Spending Assessment/Education Formula Spending (EFS) settlements and exclude the pensions transfer to EFS and LSC. 3. Funding also includes all revenue grants in DfES departmental expenditure limits relevant to pupils aged three to 15 and exclude education maintenance allowances (EMAs) and grants not allocated at LEA level. 4. Where responsibility for funding a school has transferred from an authority, related funding no longer appears in the series. 5. The pupil numbers used to convert £ million figures to £ per pupil are those underlying the SSA/EFS settlement calculations plus PLASC three-year-old maintained pupils and estimated three to four-year-olds funded through state support in maintained and other educational institutions where these are not included in the SSA pupil numbers. 6. Rounding: Per pupil figures are rounded to the nearest £1. 
		
	
	
		
			 Table 2: Average per pupil revenue funding (real) 
			  Peterborough (primary) Peterborough (secondary) 
			 1997-98 2,723 3,673 
			 1998-99 2,877 3,798 
			 1999-2000 3,109 3,988 
			 2000-01 3,377 4,314 
			 2001-02 3,561 4,521 
			 2002-03 3,675 4,714 
			 2003-04 3,985 4,927 
			 2004-05 4,144 5,203 
			 2005-06 4,375 5,407 
			 Notes: 1. Price base: Real terms at 2010-11 prices, based on GDP deflators as at 28 March 2012 2. Figures reflect relevant sub-blocks of Standard Spending Assessment/Education Formula Spending (EFS) settlements and exclude the pensions transfer to EFS and LSC. 3. Funding also includes all revenue grants in DfES departmental expenditure limits relevant to pupils aged three to 15 and exclude education maintenance allowances (EMAs) and grants not allocated at LEA level. 4. Where responsibility for funding a school has transferred from an authority, related funding no longer appears in the series. 5. The pupil numbers used to convert £ million figures to £ per pupil are those underlying the SSA/EFS settlement calculations plus PLASC three-year-old maintained pupils and estimated three to four-year-olds funded through state support in maintained and other educational institutions where these are not included in the SSA pupil numbers. 6. Rounding: Per pupil figures are rounded to the nearest £1. 
		
	
	The total revenue per pupil figures shown in the following table are taken from the new Dedicated Schools Grant (DSG). They are not comparable with those for the years 1997-98 to 2005-06 because the introduction of the DSG in 2006-07 fundamentally changed how local authorities are funded.
	The 1997-98 to 2005-06 figures are based on Education Formula Spending (EFS) which formed the education part of the Local Government Finance Settlement, plus various grants. This was an assessment of what local authorities needed to fund education rather than what they spent. The DSG is based largely on an authority's previous spending. In addition, the DSG has a different coverage to EFS. EFS comprised a schools block and an LEA block (to cover LEA central functions) whereas DSG only covers the school block. LEA block items are still funded through DCLG's Local Government Finance Settlement but education items cannot be separately identified. Consequently, there is a break in the Department's time series as the two sets of data are not comparable. An alternative time series is currently under development.
	To provide a comparison for 2006-07 DSG, the Department have isolated the schools block equivalent funding in 2005-06; as described above this does not represent the totality of 'education' funding in that year.
	The total and per pupil revenue funding figures for years 2005-06 to 2010-11 for Peterborough are provided in the following table. The following figures are for all funded pupils aged three to 19 and are in cash terms:
	
		
			 Average revenue per pupil funding (DSG + grants cash) 
			  Peterborough 
			 2005-06 Baseline 4,060 
			 2006-07 4,320 
			 2007-08 4,580 
			 2008-09 4,840 
		
	
	
		
			 2009-10 5,010 
			 2010-11 5,170 
			 Notes: 1. This covers funding through the Dedicated Schools Grant, School Standards Grant, School Standards Grant (Personalisation) and Standards Fund as well as funding from the Learning and Skills Council; it excludes grants which are not allocated at LA level. 2. Price base: Cash 3. These figures are for all funded pupils aged three to 19. 4. Figures have been rounded to the nearest £10. 
		
	
	These figures are in real terms:
	
		
			 Average per pupil revenue funding (DSG + Grants real) 
			  Peterborough 
			 2005-06 Baseline 4,620 
			 2006-07 4,750 
			 2007-08 4,940 
			 2008-09 5,060 
			 2009-10 5,140 
			 2010-11 5,170 
			 Notes: 1. This covers funding through the Dedicated Schools Grant, School Standards Grant, School Standards Grant (Personalisation) and Standards Fund as well as funding from the Learning and Skills Council; it excludes grants which are not allocated at LA level. 2. Price base: Real terms at 2010-11 prices, based on GDP deflators as at 28 March 2012. 3. These figures are for all funded pupils aged three to 19. 4. Figures have been rounded to the nearest £10. 
		
	
	Capital funding
	The following table shows capital funding allocated to Peterborough local authority for the financial years that are available. The data are in cash terms as allocations are phased across more than one year making real terms calculations misleading. Complete information on the split of capital between phases of education is not held centrally.
	
		
			 £ million 
			 Peterborough Capital allocations (1) PFI c redits (2) 
			 1996-97 (3)n/a (4)— 
			 1997-98 n/a (4)— 
			 1998-99 2.3 (4)— 
			 1999-2000 2.4 (4)— 
			 2000-01 10.6 (4)— 
			 2001-02 10.1 (4)— 
			 2002-03 9.1 (4)— 
			 2003-04 15.1 (4)— 
			 2004-05 11.0 (4)— 
			 2005-06 18.8 (4)— 
			 2006-07 22.5 63.7 
			 2007-08 12.6 (4)— 
			 2008-09 25.3 (4)— 
			 2009-10 18.8 (4)— 
			 2010-11 28.4 (4)— 
			 2011-12 21.0 (4)— 
			 2012-13 6.9 — 
			 (1 )Capital allocations includes capital grant and supported borrowing allocations. (2 )PFI credit allocations are counted at financial close. (3 )Peterborough did not receive funding in its own right in 1996-97 and 1997-98 as it formed part of Cambridgeshire local authority. (4 )Indicates that no funding was given in that year. Note: Figures are rounded to the nearest £100,000.

Schools: Yorkshire and Humberside

Hugh Bayley: To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many full-time equivalent (a) teachers, (b) teaching assistants and (c) other staff have been employed at (i) primary and (ii) secondary schools in (A) York and (B) North Yorkshire and York (1) in total and (2) per pupil in each year since 1992.

Nick Gibb: The following tables provide the full-time equivalent numbers of teachers, teaching assistants and support staff in the North Yorkshire and York local authorities in each January from 1994 to November 2011.
	
		
			 Full-time equivalent teachers, teaching assistants and support staff in service in local authority maintained nursery/primary and secondary schools. Coverage: North Yorkshire and City of York Years: January 1992 to January 2009 and November 2010 
			  Nursery/Primary Secondary 
			  FTE teachers FTE Teaching assistants FTE support staff FTE teachers FTE Teaching assistants FTE support staff 
			 North Yorkshire pre-April 1996 local government reorganisation:       
			 1992 (1)— (1)— (1)— (1)— (1)— (1)— 
			 1993 (1)— (1)— (1)— (1)— (1)— (1)— 
			 1994 2,680 2,870 (1)— (1)— (1)— (1)— 
			 1995 2,680 310 330 2,920 40 470 
			 1996 2,720 350 350 3,020 50 490 
			 North Yorkshire and York post April 1996 local government reorganisation:       
			 1997 2,780 400 370 2,940 80 490 
			 1998 2,670 490 360 2,990 90 510 
			 1999 2,730 500 370 3,080 120 520 
			 2000 2,820 550 420 3,190 160 560 
			 2001 2,880 700 500 3,250 190 600 
			 2002 2,950 1,040 360 3,220 280 660 
			 2003 2,900 1,050 340 3,310 330 620 
			 2004 2,830 1,210 390 3,450 400 740 
			 2005 2,810 1,350 400 3,460 410 870 
			 2006 2,840 1,510 410 3,520 480 950 
			 2007 2,860 1,590 470 3,520 520 1,050 
			 2008 2,850 1,740 470 3,520 610 1,090 
			 2009 2,770 1,810 490 3,370 650 1,170 
			 2010 2,760 1,870 490 3,360 670 1,220 
		
	
	
		
			 2011 2,640 1,640 480 2,460 590 880 
			 City of York:       
			 1997 630 90 70 600 10 100 
			 1998 610 110 70 600 10 110 
			 1999 630 120 80 600 10 100 
			 2000 650 130 90 640 30 120 
			 2001 650 160 90 660 30 120 
			 2002 680 230 70 650 50 140 
			 2003 640 240 80 680 60 140 
			 2004 630 260 80 700 70 150 
			 2005 620 290 80 700 90 170 
			 2006 620 330 80 700 100 180 
			 2007 650 330 90 700 110 190 
			 2008 630 350 100 680 130 190 
			 2009 610 360 110 690 140 200 
			 2010 690 370 100 720 140 240 
			 2011 590 380 110 550 130 170 
			 (1) Equals not available. Note: Staff numbers are rounded to the nearest 10. Sources: FTE teachers (1997 to 2009 618g survey, 2010 School Workforce Census), FTE teaching assistants, support staff and pupils from School Census. 
		
	
	The methodology for calculating pupil teacher ratios has recently changed to take account of dual registered pupils. At present the pupil teacher ratios for City of York and North Yorkshire are only available on the new methodology for November 2010 and 2011 and these are given in the following table.
	
		
			 Full-time equivalent pupils, qualified teachers and pupil teacher ratios (1)  in local authority primary and secondary schools. Maintained Coverage: York local authority and North Yorkshire and York—November 2010 and 2011 
			  Primary Secondary 
			  FTE  p upils FTE  q ualified  t eachers PTR FTE  p upils FTE  q ualified  t eachers PTR 
			 2010       
			 City of York 12,720 520 24.6 9,950 620 16,0 
			 North Yorkshire and York 54,340 2,310 23.5 49,910 2,870 17.4 
			 2011       
			 City of York 12,970 550 23.7 7,950 510 15.5 
			 North Yorkshire and York 53,980 2,500 21.6 38,290 2,320 16.5 
			 (1) PTRs are calculated using the FTE number of sole and dual registered pupils on roll by the total FTE number of qualified teachers regularly employed in schools. Notes: 1. Figures for 2011 include only those schools that remained with local authority maintained status at January 2012. 2. Staff numbers are rounded to the nearest 10. Sources: FTE teachers (2010 School Workforce Census), FTE pupils (School Census). 
		
	
	These statistics are provided and are sourced from the Statistical First Release “School Workforce in England, November 2011”. National statistics were published in April 2012 and underlying regional, local authority and school information on 12 July at the following web link:
	http://www.education.gov.uk/researchandstatistics/stats/a00205723/school-workforce-in-england-provisional-nov-2011
	Table 17 of the SFR provides the revised national pupil teacher ratio time series and the underlying data provides the local authority breakdown for November 2011.

Special Educational Needs

Charlotte Leslie: To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many children were (a) statemented for special educational needs, (b) in the School Action category and (c) in the School Action Plus category in each year since 1997.

Sarah Teather: The available information on numbers of pupils with statements of special educational needs, at School Action and at School Action Plus is shown in the following table. The three stages of special, educational needs (SEN) came into effect with the SEN Code of Practice in 2002; comparable information is therefore not available prior to 2003.
	The latest available information on special educational needs was published in the “Special Educational Needs in England: January 2011” Statistical First Release on 30 June 2011 at
	http://www.education.gov.uk/rsgateway/DB/SFR/s001007/index.shtml
	Data as at January 2012 will be published in the “Special Educational Needs in England: January 2012” Statistical First Release on 12 July 2012 at
	http://www.education.gov.uk/rsgateway/DB/SFR/s001075/index.shtml
	The information requested here, for 2012, will be available in Tables 1A and 1B.
	
		
			 All schools: Pupils with special educational needs (SEN) (1) . As at January each year: 2003-11 ,  England 
			  2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 
			 All schools          
			 Pupils on roll 8,375,545 8,347,730 8,287,195 8,231,050 8,167,715 8,121,955 8,092,280 8,098,360 8,123,865 
			 Pupils with statements 251,480 250,450 245,510 240,220 232,760 227,315 225,400 223,945 224,210 
			 SEN provision—School Action(2) 786,190 789,870 807,505 843,765 860,670 886,875 903,845 919,015 889,540 
			 SEN provision—School Action Plus(2) 333,935 354,770 369,385 394,550 418,160 447,465 472,810 503,050 500,155 
			 Pupils with SEN without statements(3) 1,175,515 1,204,720 1,238,435 1,302,160 1,344,505 1,402,895 1,447,205 1,481,035 1,449,685 
			           
			 State-funded schools          
			 Maintained nursery          
			 Pupils on roll 40,485 38,975 37,445 37,030 37,640 37,440 37,285 37,575 38,830 
			 Pupils with statements 550 465 410 325 310 265 285 265 250 
			 SEN provision—Early Years Action n/a 720 1,100 1,920 2,030 1,855 1,815 1,890 2,025 
			 SEN provision—Early Years Action Plus n/a 785 1,170 1,970 1,980 2,110 2,105 2,220 2,460 
			 Pupils with SEN without statements 4,460 4,270 4,110 3,885 4,015 3,960 3,920 4,110 4,490 
			           
			 State-funded primary (4, 5)          
			 Pupils on roll 4,309,775 4,254,205 4,205,665 4,150,595 4,110,750 4,090,400 4,077,350 4,096,580 4,137,755 
			 Pupils with statements 71,310 69,995 67,820 65,330 61,800 59,695 58,505 57,850 57,855 
			 SEN provision—School Action 475,350 467,230 468,555 483,180 485,260 486,555 482,015 486,960 467,615 
			 SEN provision—School Action Plus 209,950 219,020 224,315 234,185 243,630 254,545 262,325 273,635 274,950 
			 Pupils with SEN without statements 685,300 686,250 692,865 717,365 728,890 741,100 744,345 760,590 742,565 
			           
			 State-funded secondary (4, 6)          
			 Pupils on roll 3,328,730 3,353,360 3,349,220 3,347,500 3,325,625 3,294,575 3,278,130 3,278,485 3,262,635 
			 Pupils with statements 79,610 79,205 77,445 75,045 71,190 67,875 65,890 64,605 63,720 
			 SEN provision—School Action 310,640 321,735 337,605 358,420 373,140 398,255 419,810 428,835 418,935 
			 SEN provision—School Action Plus 121,950 133,070 142,140 156,640 170,710 188,805 206,555 217,085 212,480 
			 Pupils with SEN without statements 432,590 454,800 479,745 515,060 543,850 587,060 626,365 645,920 631,415 
			           
			 Maintained special (7)          
			 Pupils on roll 90,970 88,955 87,465 86,850 87,010 87,135 87,615 88,690 89,860 
			 Pupils with statements 86,370 85,175 84,145 83,850 83,645 83,600 84,295 85,445 86,660 
			 SEN provision—School Action 190 185 240 225 230 205 200 155 185 
			 SEN provision—School Action Plus 2,000 1,875 1,730 1,710 1,810 1,970 1,785 1,585 1,595 
			 Pupils with SEN without statements 2,195 2,060 1,970 1,935 2,040 2,175 2,375 2,145 2,245 
			           
			 Pupil Referral Units (8)          
			 Pupils on roll 17,525 20,330 22,480 23,670 24,165 25,290 24,760 15,550 14,050 
			 Pupils with statements 2,010 3,610 3,685 3,640 3,425 3,260 3,230 1,910 1,695 
			 SEN provision—School Action n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 1,175 770 
			 SEN provision—School Action Plus n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 8,495 8,630 
		
	
	
		
			 Pupils with SEN without statements 10,660 12,300 13,045 14,770 15,185 15,685 16,360 9,670 9,405 
			           
			 Other schools          
			 Independent (9)          
			 Pupils on roll 583,105 587,055 580,040 580,625 577,785 582,425 582,490 576,940 576,325 
			 Pupils with statements 6,780 7,290 7,255 7,355 7,760 8,055 8,690 9,470 9,750 
			 SEN provision—School Action n/a n/a n/a 15 x 0 5 0 5 
			 SEN provision—School Action Plus n/a n/a n/a x 0 0 5 5 5 
			 Pupils with SEN without statements 40,270 45,015 46,660 49,085 50,490 52,870 53,805 58,570 59,535 
			           
			 Non-maintained special          
			 Pupils on roll 4,955 4,845 4,880 4,785 4,740 4,695 4,655 4,540 4,415 
			 Pupils with statements 4,845 4,705 4,750 4,680 4,630 4,565 4,500 4,400 4,280 
			 SEN provision—School Action 5 5 10 10 5 5 x x x 
			 SEN provision—School Action Plus 30 20 30 45 30 35 40 25 25 
			 Pupils with SEN without statements 35 25 40 55 35 40 40 30 25 
			 n/a = Not available. x = 1 or 2 pupils. (1 )Includes pupils who are sole or dual main registrations. Excludes pupils in Alternative provision (except those in Pupil Referral Units). (2) Excludes independent schools and general hospital schools as data collected is not broken down by SEN provision for all years from 2003. Includes direct grant nurseries. (3) Includes pupils with SEN without statements in all school types. (4) Includes middle schools as deemed. (5) Includes primary academies. (6) Includes city technology colleges and secondary academies, including all-through academies. (7) Prior to 2009 information on pupils with SEN without statements was not collected from general hospital schools. General hospital schools are included from 2009. (8) Includes pupils registered with other providers and in further education colleges. In 2003-09 includes dual subsidiary registered pupils. (9) Includes direct grant nursery schools. Note: Totals may not appear to equal the sum of the component parts because numbers have been rounded to the nearest 5. Source: School Census

Special Educational Needs

Sharon Hodgson: To ask the Secretary of State for Education with reference to the answer of 19 December 2011, Official Report, column 944W, on special educational needs: children, and to his Department's publication, Children with Special Educational Needs 2011: an analysis, for what reason local authority and regional level data were not included in the 2011 report; and if he will ensure that they are included in the 2012 report.

Sarah Teather: holding answer 16 July 2012
	Changes to the statistical publication, ‘Children with Special Educational Needs: an Analysis’, are determined when planning and producing the publication based on the immediate needs of the Department and its customers, requests and feedback on previous versions, departmental resources and availability of the analysis from other releases. Large amounts of analysis on special educational needs by local authority and region were published by the Department in earlier releases. To include the detail in the release ‘Children with Special Educational Needs: an Analysis’ would have duplicated much of this information.
	The 2012 report will contain comment on local authority level figures in other statistical releases which are available and limited additional breakdowns of figures which have not been previously made public. Web links to these earlier releases will be included in the appropriate places in the report and additional data will be published alongside the main report.

Special Educational Needs

Sharon Hodgson: To ask the Secretary of State for Education with reference to page 12 of the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills' publication, National Careers Service: The Right Advice at the Right Time, how much he expects local authorities to contribute from their early intervention grant allocations towards supporting young people with special educational needs and disabilities to participate in education and training up to the age of 25; and what guidance he has issued to local authorities in respect of this duty and how to fund it.

Nick Gibb: holding answer 16 July 2012
	Section 68 of the Education and Skills Act 2008 requires local authorities to make available support that will encourage, enable and assist the participation of young people in education or training up to the age of 19. This duty is extended to the age of 25 in the case of individuals with learning difficulties and/or disabilities. The services offered by local authorities under this duty are targeted on overcoming barriers to continuing in education and training. In some cases, this may include careers guidance for young adults who need assistance assessing the education and training options available to them.
	The Department issued statutory guidance to local authorities on targeted support services for young people in April 2011. This is available on the DFE website at:
	http://media.education.gov.uk/assets/files/pdf/l/la%20guidance%20apr%202011.pdf
	Other than the elements highlighted in the statutory guidance, it is for local authorities to decide how they should meet their statutory responsibilities taking into account the needs of individuals. Government has allocated £2.3 billion to the Early Intervention Grant in 2012-13 and has given local authorities the flexibility to determine how it is spent.
	Local authorities have a power to undertake a learning difficulty Assessment for young people under the age of 25 who are receiving or are likely to receive post-16 education. Local authorities must have regard to statutory guidance when carrying out learning difficulty assessments. This is intended to help local authorities make consistent, effective and robust judgments that will lead to well-informed decisions relating to education and training for young people with learning difficulties and/or disabilities. Revised statutory guidance was published by the Department for Education in February 2012 and is available on the DFE website at:
	http://www.education.gov.uk/childrenandyoungpeople/send/g00203393/lda

Afghanistan and Iraq: Peacekeeping Operations

Adam Holloway: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many infantry soldiers have been deployed to (a) Afghanistan and to (b) Iraq; and how many deployed to each country have been treated for (i) transient psychological distress, (ii) alcohol misuse, (iii) post traumatic stress disorder, (iv) depression, (v) mild traumatic brain injury and (vi) each other psychological condition during and since their deployment.

Andrew Robathan: Information relating to the total number of infantry soldiers deployed to Afghanistan and Iraq from 2001 and 2003 respectively, and the number of infantry soldiers treated during their deployment, is not available centrally in the format requested and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.
	However, between 1 April 2007 and 31 May 2012, the number of Army infantry officers and soldiers, excluding infantry personnel in the Brigade of Gurkhas, who had deployed to Afghanistan was 25,300 and Iraq was 7,910.
	Details of infantry personnel who had an episode of care at a Ministry of Defence Department of Community Mental Health or in-patient admission between April 2007 and March 2012, and who have been identified as previously deployed to Afghanistan or Iraq, is provided in the following table. An episode of care may be limited to an initial assessment, which may not subsequently require the individual receiving treatment.
	
		
			 Infantry personnel () who had an episode of care (1)  at a MOD Department of Community Mental Health or in-patient admission between April 2007 and March 2012 who had previously deployed to Afghanistan and Iraq (2) 
			 Number 
			  Afghanistan Iraq 
			 Alcohol misuse 139 136 
			 Post traumatic stress disorder 234 136 
			 Depressive episode 163 156 
		
	
	
		
			 Mild traumatic brain injury(3) 178 (5)— 
			    
			 Other psychological conditions (including those which may be considered transient(4)):   
			 Other mood disorders (excluding depressive episode) 18 29 
			 Other neurotic disorder (excluding PTSD and adjustment disorder) 152 164 
			 Adjustment disorder 682 481 
			 Other psychoactive substance misuse (excluding alcohol) 9 (5)— 
			 Other mental health disorders 80 85 
			 No psychiatric disorder diagnosed 427 402 
			    
			 No International Classification of Disease classification provided 7 17 
			 (1) If personnel who have served in both Afghanistan and Iraq present with symptoms they are counted in both categories presented. If personnel have more than one episode of care for the same condition they are counted once against that condition. If a person has an episode of care for different conditions, they are counted once against each condition. (2) Data are based on the initial health assessment during a patient's first appointment, based on complaints presenting at that time. Final diagnosis may differ. (3) Data for mild traumatic brain injuries are compiled from information held by the relevant multi-disciplinary team at the Defence Medical Rehabilitation Centre at Headley Court for the period from 1 June 2008. (4) Assessments are made using Chapter 10 of the International Classification of Diseases, which does not use the term 'transient psychological distress'. (5) In order to reduce the risk of individuals being identified, all numbers fewer than five have been suppressed and the symbol '—' used.

Armoured Fighting Vehicles

Bob Ainsworth: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the export potential of the Light Protected Patrol Vehicle Foxhound; and if he will make a statement.

Gerald Howarth: holding answer 13 July 2012
	As set out in the “National Security Through Technology” White Paper CM8273 published February 2012, we must provide our armed forces with the best capabilities we can afford. A number of these capabilities, such as Foxhound, have export potential, and the Government is committed to supporting industry in realising that potential.
	While the company have received a number of inquiries from potential overseas customers, no firm export opportunities have, as yet, arisen. However, the UK Trade and Investment Defence and Security Organisation, as the Government lead for defence and security exports, are already exploring and supporting the aspirations of General Dynamics Land Systems-Force Protection Europe in any export opportunities which arise in relation to Foxhound. Its recent deployment on operations will enable us to assess its full capability.

Army

Kevan Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will publish military advice he received on (a) the amalgamation of the Queen's Royal Lancers with the 9th/12th Royal Lancers and (b) a merger between the 1st and 2nd Royal Tank Regiments.

Nick Harvey: I refer the hon. Member to the statement made by the Secretary of State for Defence, the right hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr Hammond), in his announcement on 5 July 2012, Official Report, column 1086, in which he said that, Army 2020 calls for a greater focus in future on mobility and the ability to mount expeditionary warfare based around the air assault and armoured infantry brigades of the reaction forces. This continues the Army's evolution from the cold war posture that was reliant on more armoured units. The consequence of this concept of operations is a requirement to reduce the number of Royal Armoured Corps regiments from eleven to nine.
	The Army's decision on which regiments to remove from the Order of Battle was taken on the basis of advice provided by the Royal Armoured Corps which took account of a number of criteria. Although ensuring delivery of the correct capability in the most effective way was the overriding concern, the other criteria used included a desire to minimise the number of cap badge reductions to promote the regimental system, taking account of past amalgamations within the Royal Armoured Corps, so wherever possible those who amalgamated most recently were less likely to be affected, and merging or amalgamating regiments with similar history and tradition, and current capabilities.

Army

Kevan Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which (a) Army brigades, (b) Army Air Corps, (c) Household Cavalry and Royal Armoured corps, (d) Royal Regiment Artillery, (e) Corps of Royal Engineers, (f) Royal Corps of Signals, (g) Royal Logistics Corps, (h) Army Medical Services, (i) Royal Military Police, (j) Royal Intelligence Corps, (k) Corps of Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers regiments will be based in (i) Scotland, (ii) England and (iii) Wales by 2020.

Nick Harvey: It is too early to say where specific formations and units will be based across the UK by 2020, however, the Army intends maintaining a significant presence across the UK.
	The Defence Infrastructure Organisation is leading work on the Ministry of Defence’s footprint strategy in order to deliver a Defence estate of the right size and shape that is sustainable and delivers the most cost-effective approach to future force basing. Initial decisions are expected to be made later this year.

Olympic Games 2012

Alison Seabeck: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether any of the armed forces units called on to provide extra security for the London 2012 Olympics are proposed to be abolished under his Department's Army 2020 review.

Nick Harvey: The only formed ‘unit’ being called on to provide the extra 3,500 venue security force which was affected by Army 2020 is 5(th) Battalion The Royal Regiment of Scotland (the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders).

Reserve Forces

Kevan Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to the Oral Statement of 5 July 2012, Official Report, column 1094, on Army 2020, what new training kit, uniforms and equipment have been purchased for the reservists; and what the timescale is for its delivery.

Andrew Robathan: We have allocated an additional £1.8 billion over 10 years to ensure that reservists will receive the kit and the training they need to meet their future roles.
	As part of their fully integrated role under Army 2020, equipment is now being delivered to the reserves. This includes modern vehicles, such as refurbished weapons mounted installations kit Land Rovers (RWMIK) with the delivery of the initial tranche of 48 starting in October 2012, and a further 12 for a training fleet being delivered once they are no longer required for Operation HERRICK training, Land Rovers (784 by December 2012) and the latest MAN support vehicles (876 by March 2013); Bowman radios, previously withdrawn from the reserves in 2008-09, now available for issue in September 2012 and overseas training exercises from October 2012; and personal combat system combat uniform (issued to all personnel by March 2013).

Royal Regiment of Scotland

Angus Robertson: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence from where he expects recruits to the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders to be drawn under his Department's proposals for restructuring the Army.

Nick Harvey: holding answer 13 July 2012
	Infantry recruits are not limited to joining regiments or battalions from any particular geographic location. Recruits state their regimental preference during the selection process at their recruiting office, and their battalion preference during Phase One training.
	Recruits are asked to make three choices of regiment, battalion and job or trade. While the Army attempts to allocate recruits to their first choice, this will depend on their suitability for their chosen trade and vacancies within individual battalions. Priority is given to battalions preparing for operations.
	In his announcement of 5 July 2012, Official Repor t, columns 1087-88, the Secretary of State for Defence, the right hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr Hammond), announced that the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders, 5(th) Battalion the Royal Regiment of Scotland, will be re-roled as a public duties company. The Public Duties Incremental Company (PDIC) will be made up of troops who will be drawn from the remaining four battalions of The Royal Regiment of Scotland and will rotate through the company.

Veterans: Radiation Exposure

Andrew Miller: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will publish the terms of his Department's settlement proposal for British nuclear test programme veterans, including the total sums discussed by the parties.

Andrew Robathan: In accordance with the wishes of Mr Justice Foskett of the High Court discussions were held between representatives of the Ministry of Defence and the Claimants involved in the Atomic Veterans group litigation. I am unable to publish the terms of the discussions because these were and remain subject to a confidentiality agreement between the parties.
	Such discussions took place before the hearings conducted by the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court in which both courts ruled against the Atomic Veterans case proceeding.

Meetings

Julian Smith: To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills what meetings he has had to discuss the letter sent jointly by the Prime Minister and other EU leaders to President Van Rompuy and President Barroso on 20 February 2012.

Mark Prisk: The joint letter sent by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and 11 other EU leaders was part of our ongoing efforts to work with likeminded member states to promote the EU growth agenda. The issues raised in the letter have subsequently been discussed at: the Ministerial Likeminded Group for EU Growth meeting in Vilnius in April which the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, the right hon. Member for Twickenham (Vince Cable) attended; the May Competitiveness Council which the Minister for Employment Relations, Consumer and Postal Affairs, the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb) attended; a meeting between the European Affairs sub-Committee and the German Ministerial Committee on Issues of the European Union which Norman Lamb attended; and bilateral meetings with Ministers from a number of member states (including Lithuania, Spain, Portugal and Germany) and Members of the European Parliament.